Web Only /
Features » October 17, 2005

Partisan War Syndrome (cont’d)

Email this article to a friend

The situation was inarguably awkward. But what followed was illustrative of the delirium plaguing the progressive base.

Within hours of Brown’s announcement, “progressive” Internet blogs lit up with intense criticism of Brown. And let’s be clear - Brown’s move was tactically clumsy. But the attacks went well beyond criticism of his decision to be a candidate to the core of who he is, showing that the supposedly “ideological” base is, in part, anything but. In many parts of the base, there is no ideology at all.

How does the Brown-Hackett controversy show us this? Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office, especially against someone with so little record. Remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Republican primary? The right-wing’s ideological base cheered when archconservative Pat Toomey decided to challenge moderate Sen. Arlen Specter.

Instead, parts of the progressive base did the opposite, attacking the ideological champion; calling him “untrustworthy” for his tactical decision despite his years of steadfast trustworthiness casting the tough progressive votes; and venerating the other candidate with no ideology or voting record to speak of but whose “profile” they liked. Even Mother Jones magazine published an article on its Web site lamenting the fact that Brown’s candidacy meant Democrats were supposedly “shooting down” Hackett. The magazine, one of the supposed progressive ideological lions, then pumped up Hackett attacking Brown as a “very liberal Democrat” - as if its base readership should think that was a strike against him.

This delirium in parts of the grassroots left is not limited to Senate races - it is afflicting the early 2008 presidential jostling. In straw poll after straw poll on Internet blogs, former Gen. Wesley Clark leads other potential Democratic contenders. This is the same Wesley Clark who, according to a recent edition of Roll Call, was on Capitol Hill trying to convince progressive Democratic lawmakers to back off their support for legislation that would withdraw troops from Iraq.

None of this, of course, is meant to imply that “profile” isn’t important - of course it is. But there is little - if any - rock-solid evidence that it is far and away the most important factor. And yet even without such evidence, “profile” has superceded actual issues as THE most important quality to not only the Democratic Party apparatus but also to parts of the “ideological” base - a distressing signal that the delirium is intense.

Similarly, none of this is meant to slight either Clark or Hackett, both of whom certainly have assets beyond just their profiles, and who could end up turning out to be progressive champions. The examples provide far more of a telling commentary about the grassroots base than about these particular candidates. And that commentary is clear: parts of the grassroots have taken on the establishment’s condescending, self-fulfilling prophecy that personality, charisma, image and “profile” matter more to voters than anything of substance. It’s hard to say which is more troubling - that this profile-always-trumps-substance delirium both insults voters’ intelligence and has no actual basis in reality, or the fact that many who claim to speak for an ideologically motivated base actually don’t care about issues at all. Either way, it is troubling - and dangerous - for the left.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

The third symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is a version of obsessive compulsive disorder that focuses on incessantly on “framing,” “narrative” and building “infrastructure.” No matter what you read about Democratic politics these days, everything seems to come back to these concepts - as if the left’s problems are rooted exclusively in how politicians, activists and leaders talk about issues, and how these folks can get out that rhetoric, rather than the actual positions - or lack thereof - they are taking.

No one doubts that “framing,” “narratives” and “infrastructure” are important. Republican pollster Frank Luntz, long considered the master of the trade, has certainly helped Republicans frame their odious agenda in the most effective ways. And the slew of right-wing think tanks and talk radio venues has certainly helped get Luntz’s propaganda out. Similarly, University of California, Berkeley, Professor George Lakoff, who has also done some groundbreaking work on the subject, has been an invaluable asset to Democrats, as has the new group of left-leaning talk radio, blogs and think tanks.

But the idea that the left’s big problems are all about rhetoric and delivery systems and nothing about substance is a defense mechanism designed to deny the deeper questions of conviction and guts. Obsessive focus on “framing” economic policy negates a bigger question about why large swaths of the Democratic Party and the “progressive” base aren’t bothered by corporate-written trade deals that sell out American jobs, and are too afraid to support new regulations on Corporate America for fear of being labeled “anti-business.” Similarly, obsessive focus on “framing” Democrats’ current national security policy avoids more serious inquiries into why many Democrats still stand in lock-step with neoconservatives and President Bush on the War in Iraq.

Obsessive-compulsive focus on “framing” and “infrastructure,” in short, is only as effective as the principles being framed, and the ideology being supported. George Lakoff is clearly a very talented strategist, but his effectiveness is limited - not by his own talents or work, but by his side’s unwillingness to give him the materials to frame in the first place. Think of it this way: If you frame the original Mona Lisa, you’ve got a priceless portrait. If you frame a poster you bought at the mall of the Mona Lisa, you’ve got something that may look nice, but is in reality worthless. Believing that the public will only look at the frame and not the actual picture may soothe party operatives who purport to have silver-bullet prescriptions, but it is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking.

The importance of being ideological

To be sure, it is impossible to paint a picture of the entire “progressive” base in one stroke. After all, the base is not just a monolith (regardless of what the media would like you to believe). There still remain some institutions, pundits, blogs and grassroots power organized specifically around ideology and issue positions. But a quick glance at some of the most prominent “liberals” on newspaper op-ed pages or at a small but growing segment of “progressive” blogs makes clear that, unlike on the right, efforts to strengthen an ideology on the left face a clear roadblock with the advent of Partisan War Syndrome.

“Liberal” columnists write with little sense of an overarching ideological umbrella. A cadre of bloggers and blog commenters increasingly give and take away their support for candidates based on questions of political tactics and “profile,” not issues. The left’s emerging new ideological infrastructure still at times seems afraid to openly push the Democratic Party to embrace more progressive themes.

Make no mistake about it - we cannot expect political parties to resist Partisan War Syndrome. In fact, we can expect parties to actively spread it. Just like corporations exist only to make money, political parties exist solely to win elections, no matter how opportunistic and partisan they have to be.

But while it may be acceptable for politicians and parties to exhibit cynical, conniving, convictionless behavior, it is quite alarming for the supposed idealistic “ideological” foot soldiers supporting them to operate in the same way. The former has elections to think about. But the latter is supposed to be about broader movements that are larger than just the next November. And without the latter, the best-run, best-funded party in the world will always emanate a self-defeating image of standing for nothing.

This, in part, explains why the Democratic Party emanates such an image today: It is not only the spineless politicians in Washington who have no compass, but also a large and vocal swath of the base that lacks ideological cohesion as well. The politicians are, in a sense, just a public representation of that deeply-rooted lack of conviction. Put another way, looking at the typical evasive, jellyfish-like Democratic politician on the nightly news is like putting a mirror up to a growing swath of the grassroots left itself.

Why should this be troubling to the average progressive? First, it is both soulless and aimless. Partisanship is not ideology, and movements are not political parties - they are bigger than political parties, and shape those parties accordingly through pressure. As much as paid party hacks would argue otherwise, the most significant movements in American history did not emanate from the innards of the Democratic or Republican Party headquarters, and they did not come from groups of activists who put labels before substance: They spawned from millions of people committed to grassroots movements organized around ideas - movements which pushed both parties’ establishments to deal with given issues. Without those movements transcending exclusively partisan concerns, American history would be a one-page tale of status quo.

Second, even for those concerned more about electoral victories than ideology, this Partisan War Syndrome that subverts ideological movements ultimately hurts electoral prospects. Today’s Republican Party, for instance, could not win without the corresponding conservative ideological movement that gets that party its committed donors, fervent foot soldiers and loyal activists. That base certainly operates as an arm of the GOP’s party infrastructure - but few doubt it is fueled less by hollow partisanship, and more by their grassroots’ commitment to social, economic and religious conservatism.

This is why resisting Partisan War Syndrome and doing the hard work of rebuilding an ideological movement is both a moral imperative and a political necessity for the left. A grassroots base that is organized around hollow partisan labels rather than an overarching belief system - no matter how seemingly energized - will never defeat an opponent that puts ideological warriors ready to walk through fire on the political battlefield. If we do not rekindle that same fervor about actual issues on the left, we will continue living in a one-party country, losing elections into the distant future, and most disturbing of all, watching as our government serves only to protect those in power.

David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a staff writer at PandoDaily and a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, co-hosts "The Rundown" on AM630 KHOW in Colorado. E-mail him at [email protected], follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

So unstaisfying trying to communicate with morons. Every time you think you have them on reasonable ground they balk at having to admit mistakes. Why is it hardest for people who make the most mistakes to admit even one? Or is the rationale the reverse? Those who find mistakes hardest to admit are the ones most likely to keep making them. That makes sense I guess.
........................................^^..................................................Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-07 02:06:55

WTH Rabbit is actually full of hope. Someone who says he will not change his mind about anything, is telling an open minded and rational Rabbit, HE is hopeless?
Why couldn't you answer the two simple questions? If you are not on this site to dicuss things logically and with the desire to learn if anything should come up, then why are you on this site at all?
Do you seriously think that anyone on this site, stands to gain from your opinions when you have largely rendered them useless with a stubborn refusal to allow them to be challenged or to defend them in a rational manner?
WTH, you need to do some serious self examination.
Are people like Scorp, Jay and Natalie, the sort of people you feel good being allied with? They are saying exactly the same things as you about most issues, because like you, they have been fed the official set of opinions. You don't even realise the significance of this fact do you?
You had a great chance with the political spectrum graph, to see exactly what is going on here and yet you failed to see the pattern there too. I guess maybe I've been giving you too much credit. Too bad, with so many good attitudes, the truth about certain things would have made you an awesome advocate for the truth. You are still waddling around in the primeval sludge of Mass Opinion.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-04 16:49:32

Rabbit,
You are hopeless.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-04 11:09:39

Does WTH know anything about "The Project for a New American Century"? PNAC?
Does WTH know about the NORAD and CIA training exercises which contributed enormously to the success of 911 for the "Terrorists"?
These are two more things which make a very compelling case for administration officials involvement, they are far more substantial that the Bush words and reactions mentioned above.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-03 20:06:14

The deal which you are still ignoring is that it is consistent with Lies and with foreknowledge.
More important is the following

my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-03 20:01:27

Rabbit droppings...
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-03 07:33:40

It is one of a number of facts which point to foreknowledge and in chorus especially, it is significant, stubborn fool.
The proof is here that I was right, and he said he saw something he could not have.
MY fact being correct allows me to use it towards an opinion which might stand up under scrutiny. Instead of half imagined ideas and crazy theories such as you and others like you seem prepared to believe in Despite evidence. you say you know what happened when you don't, you only think you know. If you knew enough to know what you didn't know it would be a start.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 19:31:13

Wrong WTH.
You have systematically failed at every turn to understand.

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
Bush is lying through his teeth here.
The link for this one, it sources back to originalsPosted by Rabbit on 2005-11-02 19:27:08

Hey, Rabbit, read it again a bit slower.
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-02 06:08:45

Rabbit has avoided nothing WTH. You admitted thought I that you didn't see the first Plane crash before the second.
The point here is simply that Bush said he saw the first plane going into the WTC, which neither he, nor you could at that time have seen.
You are the one being stubborn. You have altered nothing about what has been written. Why do you go on about the first hole, we are talking about the plane actually crashing.
I can tell you you could not have seen the first plane going in, because nobody saw this on TV until later. We have television here too, by the way, and Rabbit was watching it live from not long after the first plane. Anyway since you are failing to comprehend the simple point about Bush having made a claim which was consistent with foreknowledge, why are you still trying to make a point about seeing a hole in WTC 1 before no 2 was hit? It isn't the point, go back and read it. Meanwhile Rabbit will chase down some references in case you are trying to claim that the first plane strike was shown on TV before the second.
Understand that we are not talking about just the hole, but the plane actually hitting the building.
If you do get that much at least, how about we move onto some more things which also help in the theory of foreknowledge? Remembering that these are just three facts, and circumstantial at that. We have much more WTH but maybe you'd rather not go beyond this. It is a mystery really why you are still going on about this issue. What don't you get about it?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-01 22:00:10

Rabbit said,
"You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-01 06:15:59

He claimed he saw the first hit. He was given a one way communique about the attcks. he was not placed under any special security precautions. 1................2..............3
Three bits of evidence he knew beforehand. Ready for three more WTH? These are actually only circumstantial, there is much betterPosted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 22:05:54

Too bad about your perception of Rabbit as smug, for he is. This is Finally someone who get's a criticism of Rabbit right..............................SMUG....
Yes Rabbit is somewhat Smug in his knowledge but if you will notice that many other people on this site are in agreement with Rabbit about the things he is "Smug" about, this might not seem to be such an insult. If facing an opponent who has demostrated he has but a tenth of the information as you, and if you are completely confidant of your own case, then I'm sorry WTH it is hard noy to feel smug. In fact, it is a natural part of Rabbit's personality that he is constantly trying to take the edge off his, "smugness" and softening the blows as much as possible. It was inevitable that a relatively smart opponent would finally pick up on this one and there at least two more criticisms which could viably be launched against Rabbit, which nobody has picked up on yet. Congratulations on a home run WTH and Rabbit had already put his money on you being the one who would finally get one where Rabbit is concerned.
You are falling way short of the mark by claiming that these few details of "Objective Analysis" of the "Subject" of George W Bush at the critical moments are ALL. by which we have based the opinion that he had foreknowledge. No WTH this was just FACTS, and we have about another dozen of varying importance alone which in combination give credence to our theory that Bush was being informed that things were happening according to foreknowledge.
We are examining facts which collectively point to one conclusion, and which also point away from the official LIE. There is no hurry to assume we have presented all the reasons why we have our opinions, that is your way, not ours. You see, rabbit and others like him, place a much higher price on their opinions as you. It is odd when one considers that someone like you is much more inclined to live or die on a particular opinion, it is you who will defend your opinion in the face of reasoning and facts, not us. Either of the above are enough to cause any of us to relingquish an opinion. Yet we will not necessarily adopt a new opinion, as you seem determined is the way. We may just prefer to accumalate facts and ideas before committing ourselves, a subtlety lost to you clowns. All you would be doing at this point if you were as rational as the majority of us, is accumalating facts and trying to compare your pre-conceptions with them. Just because you have about six imagined "facts" in your head about 911, don't assume that we don't have about -100- facts apiece and ours are all verifiable facts. Your "facts" are in the final anaysis only opinions. Facts exist which completely obliterate any of those opinions from being valid and thus there is no hurry to assume you have faced all there is about anything just from the first fact or two.
First Fact was that the statements of behaviour and actions of Bush were consistent with him having foreknowledge. Got it? Rabbit is smug about this, because it is. The FACTS we have just established, via your acceptance, actually we didn't link to sources even, are that Bush didn't show expected surprise and his staff didn't expect any orders from him afetr giving the advice. we acn see that he was not conscidered to be in danger, which is also odd, in the first few minutes off such attacks, when before and sicne that day, a single airplane out of its flight path saw hime being evacuated,a and under major security.
WTH, if you don't mind Rabbit would like to claim three specific facts above which are consistent with foreknowledge.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 21:57:29

WTH as usual jumping beofre looking. So full of preconceptions he is incapable of ratuional discussion.

You are basing your conclusion that Bush had advanced knowledge on the above! Oh, boy!

Rabbit really feels sorry for you sometimes WTH. You are such a dummy and yet you try so hard.
Rabbit is not basing aby opinion on this one fact. Rabbit has always been prepared to ascribe the same factors you do to Bush's reaction and words, as a matter of fact. Trouble is my poor information starved friend, it is NOT the only evidence of Bush's pre-knowledge.
Now shall we stick with the fact that Rabbit was "RIGHT" that Bush could not have seen the first plane hit, and shall we also rememeber the rest of the above post, which also provideds a much more compelling case for his foreknowledge. Any rational person would have seen the point being made and frankly only a Bush Lover could actually have avoided the obviopus conclusion you are able to satisfy yourself with. Problem is WTH that you have expressed a theory to explain Bush's words, in this one example, now what about the pattern of him being told as referred to, or would you like to question the FACT again?
\
You see my newchum thinker, the process of informing oneself does not go , NEW FACT followed vby new theory. It goes with NEW FACTS being accumalated untill they create a plausible theory. So no jumping the gun with your gutless need to have an answer to everything as quick as a blink.
Nor os the rection and the pattern of actions give all the evidence by which Rabbit and many others conclude Bush knew beforehand. We have about twenty different facts which all collectively suggest the same thing, that is why. But for now, a dittohead is best to stick to gleaning facts and leaving the opinions until you have enough information that they mighjt be of some value.
for someone who is so sure Reality is hard to prove, you seem in a big hurry to crreate Opinions out of nothing.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-31 20:49:12

WTH, good point.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Now we can try to determine just how stupid the Bush Administration would have to be to explain all these pesky unanswered questions.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-31 08:44:07

Fine WTH, but the whole point of this fact is that Bush claimed he saw the first plane strike, then he claimed to see the second strike.
Also when he is told by an aide, of the attack, sitting in front of a classromm, on video, the truth is quite apparent.
The aide leans in, whispers in Bush's ear and imediately moves away. Supposedlt that ws the first Bush knew about it, and yet the aide didn't even wait for a reply. Others with Rational minds and open eys, realsie this means Bush was not being informed of an unexpected event, otherwise, why does he sit for so long and do nothing? Why does nobody even expect him to do anything?, and why is he not being rushed into secure protection?
WTH, the debate is moving into areas of facts and speculation about what they mean, it is probably not a good idea you stick with this, because you won't actually be able to kepp up. Just assume these are our "unprovable ideas", and you have yours, and you don't need to confuse yourself.
You may either believe Bush was steering the ship of state by powers of telepathy or you may believe nobody really knows if it was Bush in the Video maybe. Who knows what you believe? Who cares? Bush obviously knew the attacks were coming, and staff close to him certainly knew something too. Why wasn't he being rushed off to safety by secret service?Posted by Rabbit on 2005-10-30 16:05:23

Rabbit says,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-30 05:09:45

Gues what WTH you have inadveratntly stumbled across something which destroys your case about internet and proof.
It is entirely possible to prove that the second plane crash was shown first on TV and the First plane crash much later. You see this then proves especially in combination with other evidence, that GWB was expecting the news. That he lied and by the way it can also be shown that the "special" press conference in which he announcd the attacks, was booked the day before the attacks.
WE CAN PROVE IT WTH, We kmow it is true. It is so well documented that Rabbit is referring to these "unheard of facts" (for you anyway) as if they were common knowledge. Rabbit is not co-ordinating any effort against WTH here, he is stating what is known to be facts among informed people with complete faith that the majority will already know what he is talking about.
They would ask for links if they doubted and Rabbit would provide all the sourcing necessary. WTH of course lives in a cartoon world where everything is made up like in the movies so nothing can be proven or relid on.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 23:00:17

What this proves WTH is that you are of a shallow and inferior mindset, and are failing even now to comprehend the links between dots so close. As Luminous Beauty is alluding to, and as Rabbit can confirm at least from here on the "other half" of the ball we call earth, the attacks were shown on TV my small minded friend, but in the order of Second plane and much later the first plane. Bush says he saw the first plane hit the WTC, then he saw the second Plane.
Those who have realised the significance of this, in combination with other details, for the doubters, have revisited G W Bush on Video tape for those critical few minutes and have come to the unavoidable conclusion this guy knew about the news before it was given. He was not being given the news in first hand, although the timings show it was within minutes of the first strike, it is so obvious that he has just been given "news" of something which had been awaited in trepidation and which was of momentous import, it is wild. Bush looks like a kid caught with his hand in the cooky jar for several minutes.
Nobody needs sources for this of course?
Hey David.............Ding Dong the witch is dead,......... The wicked witch is dead...............
DU thread is dead, Rabbit was penning a poem to Curious Dave when the Seamus he struck with his magical stave, and shut down the debate from Hell.
Hooray...............................^^.............................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 22:49:44

You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited. You saw this later, but at the initial time the first plane strike was not on TV, the video footage for this event came in later. The second crash was on TV, before the first was shown in video.
Of course for people who understand sourcing Rbbit would now post a link to the "proof" of this, but we already know that WTH lives in a completely theoretical unprovable universe, so for WTH the mere statement of this fact is all there is.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 22:25:47

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments here :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
Attention all War Mongers and Attention all Peace Lovers
and Attention all Those Who Are On The Fence :
The linked thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-29 14:14:48

WTH:
I also was watching at the time, so I guess that must prove in your twisted reasoning that I was in on the WTC attack also.
Do you claim you saw the first plane hit? That would only prove that you aren't too observant. Something already proven.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-29 09:58:54

There might once have been a muslim fundamentalist attack on American soil and there might be another one or even a first one, one day. In the meantime there are daily bombings and shootings of innocenty Muslkims going on by US troops. You have killed At least 150, 000 innocent civilians so far and and possibly twice that number, not to mention the radiation and poisoning from Depleted Uranium, for the rest of time in Iraq. All this because Somebody killed 3000 mostly Americans. Somebody did it and soembody had to pay. Never mind if the ones who pay are not involved, so lonmg as they are Muslims, the stupid Americans can be convinced they are somehow a threat.. That's right a country with a Military Budget bigger than the combined budgets of the next twenty countries on the list. YET such a brave country of "World Policemen" actually live in fear of some of the weakest countries on the planet. They live in such abject and belly crawling fear that they are prepared to suspend all conventions on human rights, as well as use torture and killing of jouirnalists to keep things humming along. A country that is taking the killing of inmnpocent civilians to an industrial level. How can such a powerful nation be afraid of such poor and weak people. To hear you gutless wonders bleating about A bomb going off inside America any moment, as if ONE bloody bomb is going to bring your whole democracy crashing down in ruins. Maybe what you havbe is so fragile there is some truth to this.
In the meantime you big World Superheroes, the Iraqis don't have to wonder if they are going to be getting any bombs dropped on their heads. They can be pretty sure that they will be getting bombed and shot at on a daily basis for a long time yet, and there are no maybes about it.
Twenty times the combined budgets of the next twenty nations..........................And still scared of its own shadow.
Whatever you guys are on, we keep telling you, we don't want any. You keep on fighting the bogeymen, and just hope you can keep killing them at an exponential rate, because statistics are that for every civilian you kill you are getting two more insurgents committing to the cause. They are getting more and more pissed off and better armed. They will eventually spread out and come get you back in America. It is easy to get across the US border, Bush has opened it up to all comers it appears.
The more the worlds biggest yellow belly nation lashes out insanely at others, the more you are going to have to fear. Already America has become a despised and loathed nation, you cannot continue down the current path and not eventually come into conflict with the majority of the world's people. It is so obvious that you guys are cruisin for a bruisin, and Rabbit thinks it can only be the intention. Nobody at world leader level could seriously expect the USA to create more enemies, destabilise the Middle East anymore and survive the blowback. You will not be the first nation to have lost its army in the sands of the middle east.
It takes a special kind of fool to have lost as much as George Bush has in five years. Lost the surplus, lost the environment, lost the country's respect and standing in the world. Lost the Army and the country's morale. Lost a city, and now it looks like he'll lose the empire, all in a days work for the Shrub.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 08:39:17

It would seem that WTH is only willing to listen to rock hard rigorously deductive arguments supported by verifiable reproducible evidence. His only use for inductive reasoning, it would seem, is to show that inferences cannot be absolutely proven in the above fashion. This is a naive and disingenuous view. What he is saying in effect is; since you cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if it has risen every morning since time immemorial, then one is in error for believing it will come up tomorrow. It is not immaterial to point out that the sun doesn't actually 'rise', but that the rising of the sun is the apparent artifact of the earth's rotation on it's axis.
It's also evident that much of WTH's opinions are based on inferential beliefs that he has never thought deeply about, but is irrationally and stubbornly resistant to bring into question. Opinions that are objective barriers to the potential growth of his understanding and wisdom.
In particular his shallow, simplistic and a-causal belief that there is an existential conflict between 'radical Islam' and the 'rest of the world'. He appears poorly informed about the complex, social, cultural and political history and nature of 'radical Islam' and it's context in the Islamic world. He shouldn't be selectively taking as gospel the spew of some 'radical Islamists' (not what he himself considers a reasonable assumption according to his above rant.), nor assume those who share his peculiar construction of reality constitutes the 'rest of the world'.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-29 08:17:27

It is also likely the London bombings were done with BOMBS under the trains, not in backpacks as was claimed. It is certain that at least one of the four alleged "Bombers" is still alive and well and was not in England at the time it happened.
Bush knew the WTC's were coming down before the first plane hit. He gave away his foreknowledge in an interview later, claiming to have been watching the first plane hit the buildings on TV and then the second one.
It is so easy to just spout off unverified nfacts. The thing is of course there are many on this site who already know much about thses things and know quite well that most of what Rabbit has just been saying is factual and verifiable. So if it ever feels like people are talking over your head WTH, speaking of things of which you know nothing, don't be too worried, it is nothing except our opinions being different to yours. It has to do with the strange way people like us go about discerning things research, debate and open minds. Nothing to concern yourself with. You really are going to have a very unsatisfactory experience overall though, and this is too bad. You shall reap what you sow.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 08:14:34

And here you are back to safe and quite useless generalisations.
All of your generalisations are of no use if you can't put them to any use to help you understand anything. There is so much information that is lost to you, and you are wasting your time around here with that attitude. You will constantly face being called ignorant, your opinions will face ridicule because they are often based on patent falsehoods, and your only answer to being proven wrong, and you have been on numerous issues, is to say nothing can be proven. Rabbit cannot hold the branch of peace forever, and a greedy hypocritical nation of warmongers cannot fail to be called one if it cannot mend it's ways.
if Rabbit was to turn to the sort of un-referenced hyperbole as you, he could speak far more of Extremist elements who decide American Imperial foreign policy, the Fundamentalist Religious Zealots who attack Muslim Nations on the strength of fraud and lies, to steal their OIL. It is also true that the President of the United States is the son of a Pedophile, has WTH heard of the details of that? What are details to WTH so we'll just let the statement stand. America is the main reason that there is lots of Cheap Heroin back on the streets. Thanks to America reversing the Taliban's clampdown on Heroin trafficking, thanks to DIRECT US support of the industry it is now flourishing again. Well hell, why not. Heroin is the USA stock in trade when it comes to making lots of fast bucks which need to be kept below the radar. Can anyone say "Golden Triangle"? And George Herbert Bush and CIA all in one sentence? The Rabbit will make a point of spouting lots of unqualified opinions for the benefit of WTH, and making reference to historical events, in as irresponsible a way as WTH thinks right. No arguing with Rabbit now WTH. You have set the standard. You can say anything you want, and Rabbit is n ot going top challenge anything you wish to babble on about. The Rabbit will in return not feel obligated to observe his usual measure approach. You cannot just say Rabbit is wrong of course and ahve it mean anything, for Rabbit is telling the truth as he knows it. Of course, unlike WTH Rabbit will be happy to provide references for anything which he claims as a fact, and unlike WTH Rabbit can defend his ideas.
In the meantime, the USA was behind the Lockerbie Bombing, and the Israeli's are believed to have carried out the attck on the USS Cole
Europe is not confronting any threats in any backyards, where do you get your rubbish. There is no threat in Europes backyard, no fundy Muslim groups have been causinmg any trouble in Europe. The biggest terrorist threat in Europe is NEO-Nazis.
Of course everyone knows that it was agents of the Spanish police who pulled off the Madrid bombings, and it was the news of this which cost the Spanish Government the election, everyone except most Americans of course.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 08:14:11

Rabbit said,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-29 07:13:01

Lastly WTH when you are ready to get into the damned car, and buckle up, we have a short but awesome trip into the unknown to undertake.. List your objections to Rabbit's outlook, if you feel you have devined it and allow him to defend his position based on facts, which will be established or abandoned as the case may be. You have only to challenge Rabbit on the facts, and if he cannot give a GOOD reason for adhering to them you will recieve an acknowledgement of this if not a complete reversal of opinion. Rabbit has no fear of any test of his opinions, and he knows that WTH has soon no choice but to put his own to the test too. Rabbit has no choice but to admit the whole thing is for him a forgone conclusion. Rabbit knows WTH belongs to us. None would believe it but Rabbit knows that WTH is on the brink of realisation, and when the penny drops it is going to sound like distant thunder, to the alert.
WTH is more than he seems, a whole generation or at least a portion of them are connected to WTH by their very essence. He is one of those kids who picked on the Rabbit as a strange youngling, but only in a peripheral sense. He is not one who led, but rather who joined in, but never quite knew why. Today WTH is OLDER, like rabbit he has many summers and many battles under his belt. But in some ways, we are not so far removed from that playground when we found ourselves separated by the crowd who knew not what they were doing or saying.
Are they really any more clued in today, now that they have grown up?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-29 02:16:23

Rabbit does not want to prove his beliefs.
WTH Rabbit only wants to prove certain facts upon which those beliefs are based, where it seems we have differing views of the facts as outlined above. If we can agree on facts and yet have different ideas, that is fine and it is a lot more common among open minded people than you may imagine. Curious Dave and I have very different attitudes in some ways and we don't agree on several things. If you pay attention though, we do agree on facts, or when we don't we will establish them and then decide. The same can be said of most of us. Rabbit has disagreed about some things with others and they with Rabbit, but the sort of facts we base our "different" opinions on, are generally agreed upon, or we set out to achieve that.
Again the comparison is that we already know what you know about things, but you don't know what we know in addition. everytime one of us tells you that there is more to a particluar story or history you get your back up. Do you sriously think you know everything there is to know about each subject? Then why do you refuse to look at any new information?
The new info might not turn out to be solid, it may not check out, and if you can show this, we would all be gratefull. The information which we choose to impart, and defend, however is things we will ourselves already have questioned and researched so don't be surprised if most of it checks out. ignore the cries of Shills and Trolls who are always attacking sources and never the content, that is their bread and butter. Many of the Shills cannot even access many of the sites we give as references because they are kept shielded from certain truth by their servers. They never admit this, anm so have a blanket rule of ignoring things and of generic attacks on sources. This is precisely what the programmed sheeple do so they can easily hide their dishonesty among all the confusion.
It is inevitable that new information will lead to your opinions changing, but that is not my goal I swear. I want only for the truth to be accepted and then for all to make up their own minds. That is in contrast to having their minds made up for them by selective propaganda.
Don't throw that back at Rabbit either he is not being selective, he is advising you to look at as much info as possible, not just selected sources. Rabbit is prepared to look at anything you have and defend anything satisfactorily or give it up. How open and rational is that?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-28 21:23:46

If however it became apparent that Rabbit has a case for there being more terrorism now, then WTH would in all fairness, then be expected to re-visit his opinions, based upon this fact. You may yet have other reasons which buttress your support for the war, but you would at least no longer be able to claim that the war in Iarq reduces terrorism. You may still have the opinion for other reasons, which hopefully you will also put on the table, but if facts begin to accumalate which collectively abolish your reasons for believing the war is righteous, the a rational being would re-evaluate those beliefs in as open minded way as possible.
The regular claims by you and others that Rabbit loves Muslims or that Rabbit hates America, are nothing but emotional accusations and they have no basis in anything Rabbit has ever said. Just because Rabbit has as a referee to say that America is at fault, does not mean he is bised towards America. Just because he says Muslims don't deserve to be demonised because of a minority of extremists doesn't make Rabbit biased. Just because Rabbit says that a minority of xetremists have taken over America, does not mean he considers all Americans to be reflected by those extremists. The sheer ignorance and hypocrisy of that crowd is represented magnificantly by George W Bush, and it is regrettable to find so many peope who are just like him and just as bad as all the caricatures of Americans. You WTH are borderline, only marginally free of being so deluded.. Do you think it is easy to speak thus to someone? It is not. At this stage you have earned Rabbit's respect, because you have shown the courage to come this far, but there is no easy way to tell someone they are so wrong about some things that they are actually supportinmg something which inm reality is the antithesis of everything they believe.
An important clue which has been offerred before is this.
Your position is supported by a fast shrinking margin, it is gaining no new supporters and has not since it's inception. Rabbit by this means polls in USA. Those who believe as we others do, we so-called lefties, which is not so simple now as we know., our numbers are swelling fast. Every day now we are seeing people who have finally opened their eyes and that is how they see it themselves. The most common comments from them are, "all this time I thought I knew what was going on, now I realise the truth. everything has changed for me" Now that might sound scary and it probably is. Rabbit has had thirty years to get used to the ideas which are now occurring to many more people, and so hasn't felt, "safe" for a long time.. Used to living in an uncertain world means maybe Rabbit is a bit immune to the beastliness.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-28 21:06:09

It is not the beliefs which need to be the same, Rabbit of all people is most open to new ideas. If your ideas are different to mine about the same thing then the dicussion is worthwhile and mutually beneficial.
If however we have different ideas because we have different facts upon which to base those ideas, then the FACTS are the thing which can and must be agreed upon. If those facts can be established, then to not do so where there is disagreement is avoidance, and it is recognisably the only way in which people with your views can indulge in dicussion with people who challenge your world view.
You are sadly blind to your own blinkered condition, and it is incredibly weird to see otherwise rational people behaving like it. It is recognisable more and more as a condition, common to an increasingly isolated group of people who denying the entire world beyond their program.
If misquotes or mis-information is included in a source somebody gives, then the rational thing to do, is to show this is so, with better information. It is irrrational to refuse to consider anything within a source as unreliable merely on the strength of your argument. You are being generic when it is spceifics which count. When we make a generic comment you prefer then to find specifics which are exceptions, which is not the point either. Generalities are fine, in their place.
If you say you support the WAR in Iraq, because it is reducing terrorism, you have given your opinion, and a supposed fact upon which you base your thinking.
If Rabbit then says he does not support the war, that is Rabbit's opinion, and is not a refutation of itself. If however Rabbit challenges the fact upon which your opinion is based; ie The War in Iraq is increasing the number of Terrorists and world Terror acts., then this becomes a refutation of your fact, and IT DOES MATTER. If it does not matter to you that your facts are wrong, then even reasonable people like Rabbit and others here, will simply call you names, because anybody who does not care about accuracy and yet who would waste others' time with nothing but biased opinions, is only worth calling names.
Now to simply say either of the above claims, is in itself only a statement, and as you say of no value in proving anything.
So Rabbit then says the war is increasing the number of terrorists and terror and he provides a number of newspaper articles which refer to documents or speaches by notables which refer to the fact that terrorism is increasing. Rabbit then posts links to reports from various organisations, who have verifiable lists of the terrorist actions and relative numbers. Rabbit maybe also posts links to reports about CIA and other intelligence organisations making similar claims. These things are what would typically be considered sources for such a claim and upon reading them, WTH would have a choice to believe or not to believ what he is reading. If he reads something he does not believe, and gives a reason why not, then it should not be too hard for Rabbit to better verify the fact or even agree with WTH as it may happen that the particular fact is unverifiable or even questionable.
It could be that WTH could find something which says there are lots less terrorists and terror attacks today thjan ever before and we would look at that.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-28 20:08:47

Rabbit,
I have NEVER said, "Nothing on the internet is true." I have NEVER said, "Nothing on the internet can be proven."
As a matter of practice I seldom say "never" Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-28 14:23:01

Here's your big example to the world Scorpy and Jay and WTH.
According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.
The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."
The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.
---------From above linkPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-27 03:04:14

kmg36
These sites and the internet in generall is all there is, use it well and pass the news on.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-27 03:00:48

Well what do you know, Government Accounting Office confirms key key 2004 stolen election findings.
Is this the way the way Democracy works is it?
Just as well as it wasn't a democrat who stole the election by fraud, now that would be a crime.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-27 02:56:57

I absolutely agree with this article. Republicans can easily paint Democrats as "pure politicians", trying to cater to whatever the public wants, because of their inability to take firm stands on issues. Then the GOP can look like the party of principle. HA.
What I don't understand, is the comments here referring to the 1960s Civil Rights legislation almost as if it were too liberal because it lost the South.
This is extremely frightening. If Democrats shy away from such legislation because of political fears, the country is in trouble: how are we supposed to move forward?
What is needed is an "information source" that can spread the Liberal message and combat the poison that is constantly being planted by Rove & Co.Posted by kmg36 on 2005-10-27 02:52:51

To Jay
Your acknowledgement, of Rabbit's request, is very much appreciated. In fact by so doing, you have put Rabbit in the invidious position of having to apologise to you...... again...........eew.....................^>..................
Rabbit was not very polite, and this was partly a consequence of carry over distaste from previous times, and partly due to Rabbits assumption that you would ignore the request. Thank you, and Rabbit would like to announce that Jay Cline is the inspiration which brought all of us, finally crawling up from the mud of HTML ignorance. ........Hooray for Jay.
Rabbit still votes decidedly against smilies and anything really which detracts from simple straighforward discussion.
Every step forward should be reviewed if it despoils the environment.
Rabbit stands self rebuked but happy......................^^.................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 22:22:54

"You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills.."
... and sharpen your wit too. Both of you.
Anyone who can make me laugh scores points with me.
Thank you all.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-26 14:21:42

I have to admit I find you fascinating, Jay. At least in an anthropological way. You are not an unintelligent or completely witless person, yet in intellectual debate you display less a fundamental grasp of reason and logic than the average Borneo tribesman. If you were to show the same level of cognition in your ordinary life you undoubtedly would represent a grave risk to yourself and others.
It does seem a be a recurrent characteristic in many of those who identify themselves with the conservative movement. Particularly those who like to make themselves obnoxious on left-wing websites. I can't decide whether it is a conscious absurdist strategy intended to inflict confusion and disarray in the ranks of what you see as the enemy (troll), or whether you actually are attempting to engage in honest and genuine debate to the best of your abilities (truth-seeker). Maybe a mixture of the two?
It does not make much difference to me. You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills and to focus my life's experience of thinking and laboring in the field of life's trenchant problems. For that, I wish to extend my most sincere and genuine thanks and gratitude. No irony intended, honest.
In any case, I sincerely believe you should take a 'fresher course in Logic and Rhetoric. It would make you a better foil, anyway (This time don't sit in the back of the class and trade snarky notes with your geeky friends, OK).Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-26 12:07:21

Jay, think nothing of it. It's your confusion, not mine, anyway.
Just to be clear, this is a response to your response to my response to your response to Rabbit's admonishment on block quoting.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-26 10:58:35

lb,
sorry. I meant that to be in response to Rabbit's admonishment on blockquoting.
sorry for the confusion.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-26 10:39:14

Rabbit is not too sure what this word was meant to be either>
antrths
We shall call it lies.......... Maybe it was untruths..........yes.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:45:17

Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:24:21

WTH ............Rabbit was not being mean to WTH, as one who has seen more than enough of businessmen, entrepreneurs, and bordrooms, my comment is about the people who usually inhabit them, it was facetious but not intended to be malicious.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 02:14:04

WTH
IMO they will get a subjective reponse.
Of course they will, we want a subjective response from the sunject, WTH.
We must not have the subjects awareness of the outcomes affecting their response precisely because their respknse is unavoidably subjective.
Once we have completed the test, we can stand outside and make an objective analysis, if we are able. The alternative is to remain locked within a subjective outlook, failing to recognise the significance of the overall results, for want of comprehension. As such one is merely unable to remove onseself to an objective viewpoint, it doesn't alter the test results or its validity, only the subjects outlook can change, from subjective reaction, to an objective viewpoint, which is always a challenge mentally, only humans can normally do it. .............I am a magic Rabbit...........look back at my results, I was at first a bit dismayed, but consideration of the broader picture, (others can read the FAQs for the same effect), made it much clearer.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 01:40:14

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
That's about where I would have guessed. Not a flame-on capitalist but distrustful of many collectivist forms, wanting many areas of life to be beyond authority or others' votes. Not a bad estimate.
Some of the questions were loaded as hell... so many assumed correlations of meaning and values. Several were quite irritating.
For what it's worth...Posted by Kuya on 2005-10-26 01:32:49

Thankyou for not Blockquoting.

Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-26 01:30:53

Jay, you're welcome.
David, not at all. I didn't have to jump in. I did try to toe a line between you guys. I'm happy you two have repaired your little contretemps. Hopefully it will serve as model for some of the folks here, on how rational beings resolve their differences.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 13:58:54

Luminous Beauty, Do I owe you an aplogy for my possible impertinence when I dragged you into the discussion Rabbit and I were having?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-25 13:23:48

Apology accepted.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-25 12:45:26

Nothing fuzzy about it, Jay, except the surface of your cerebral cortex. Your mind is on vacation, but your mouth is working overtime. Give it up, already. If you do have anything closely resembling an even tangential valid point it is pathetically trivial, to be generous. There is nothing more obvious than that we both could be doing better things with our time.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 12:17:45

So, the website is dealing with fuzzy definitions, then.
Funny, I thought I already made that point in my original critique.
Q: When is a libertarian not a Libertarian?
A: Exactly!Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-25 12:08:01

Explicitly:
Adherents of Libertarianism (a rightist political movement) may all be libertarians, but not all libertarians are adherents of Libertarianism.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 11:43:19

Jay:
A rabbit may be rabbit-like, but rabbit-like is not a rabbit.
Get it?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 11:31:42

I think lb just proved I am indeed a troll.
I still don't get it.
A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit, except when it is a hareball for Fluffy.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-25 11:26:05

Just to clarifyPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 11:11:56

luminous beauty,
Unless, of course, I lied to the survey, to myself and to you.
(Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any "FACTS" coming from the internet.)Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-25 11:11:20

luminous beauty,
"WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree."
---------------
If this survey were better written you could at least be sure that with my numbers in the lower left quad, I would not be a fascist. The rest would till be an open question.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-25 11:08:28

Posted by luminous beauty on October 25, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-25 11:01:25

WTH:
Question with inherent bias: Did you know WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast?
Statement without implicit bias: WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.
For the record I disagree, but only because I have no evidence to indicate otherwise.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-25 09:39:32

David,
"Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will."
This reminds me of the only agrument with my wife that I can remember winning.
She said, "People do not change."
Then I reminded her, "I used to be much nicer." and she agreed.
I guess I showed her!Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-25 09:00:03

libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.
No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
WhatPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-25 06:51:47

Mrs Rabbit
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00
A little North, yes, Mandela. Good guess.
She is a clever economic numbery girl by the way.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 23:26:24

"Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next."
Yes Rabbit, The second go at HONEST results . Please do not forget that as I have said my second resluts were an experimant. The experiment being answering "Strongly Agree" or "Strongly Agree".
I hope that if anyone is changing their HONEST RESULTS that it is that ... HONEST.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 22:23:50

Yes Rabbit,
Life in general.
That is why the Trilogy on Four Parts. 2 parts this, 1 part that, and 1 part ??
I acknowledged the tangent of the rant.
I am not sure if it was out of context? If it was for you I apologize again. My words were mostly facetious but serious as well. As much to you as to others. Your words provided the opportunity for it. I am glad that you and I know people can change. We have illustrated it for them.
Luminous Beauty,
I read your subsequent posts and hope you read my previous posts on the thread for the context. My questions had a simple context of their own though. So did LB's answers.
I shamelessly asked Luminous Beauty ,specifically, the same questions I was asking every one rhetorically. I ask, get answer, in context or not. Rabbit said he hoped others would weigh in on the discussion. My questions stand.
I trust that Luminous Beauty would not let my impertinence stand if it was perceived. LB : Your thoughts please?
Yes Rabbit. Let them do what they will. I do stand byt the original results as the best result now. But with a little wriggle room. It was a good test for the reasons you and I and Luminous Beauty have all stated.
Jiggling the watch to see how it works is all I am doing
Curious Dave
PS The experiment is us...and I too think the flow of enlightenment is mostly one way ... for the better.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 22:14:20

To quote Luminous Beauty, who has said this more clearly than Rabbit, .........If there is any inherent imbalance in those results you would have to look at the weighting of the results for each response and at the calculating algorithm
That is where any criticism must begin, not poking about with generalities about testing methods most of which are taken care of by the scientific process by which the test is constructed. Most if not all of the criticisms people have raised are adequately answered in the FAQs. Maybe not adequate for some people, but is anything enough to convince some?
If only these people were capable of reading a paragraph and picking out the main ideas, and challenging them, instead of the format used, or semantics or some general trick of avoidance of the real issues.
You can start by saying that the US presence in Iraq is making things worse than they ever were, and instead of looking at how things were, in detail and comparing to now, in detail, they end up using WWII or the French Revolution to illustrate their contention that Iraq has never been so well off.
Obviously this is an example and not intended to chjange the subject, which is what it all boils down to. People would too often rather change the subject than admit error.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 21:48:57

Rabbit has ben calling them questions out of habit but now wishes to correct, Statements with which we agree, or disagree, not questions.
This is a critical thing about it which impressed rabbit and he forget even to mention it and fell into the silly trap of calling them questions too.
The definition is important.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 21:39:47

David this final one is a rebuke.
Now Rabbit reads how you use Luminous Beauty's words. You did not ask those things of Luminous Beauty in context and you are not quoting them in context.
within the very quote you used are the following which can be used in this contextchange of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results.
Which was what was Rabbit's point from the start.
Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.
If a person is incapable of answering most of those questions within a fair degree of accuracy of their own positions, the first time, how can knowing how the test results looked and thus being able to alter the results going to make a more useful answer?
tch tch tch................^^..............
David the test was as you have repeatedly, said most accurate the first time, why do you still want to say that if Jay wants to change his result that that is OK too? Dude, Rabbit agrees Jay is free to do whatever he wants with his result.......................... but as far as Rabbit, ........and anybody, including you, by your own stated beliefs.........will consider his first result to be the best picture of him as a person, here and now.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 20:47:10

David
Rabbit has just finished reading your posts. It occurs to rabbit that you are talking about life and people in general and this is not nor ever was Rabbit's point. It was always the experiment, and it's application which Rabbit is trying to establish. YOU KNOW RABBIT DOES NOT believe people cannot change, why the hell else would Rabbit do what he does? You know he seeks CHANGE, but thgat is not what we were talking about. Rabbit is trying to discuss the validity of the experiment and you are trying to dicuss the eternal path of enlightenment. Nothing you are otherwise saying is Rabbit in disagreement with. He agrees with all you say about free will, and about choices and growth and actually Rabbit would disgree only to say that for the most part change is one way, very few souls actually change for the worse over a life time, most go forward in the long run.
But these things are out of context when discussing the results which people here now have gotten..
By the way rabbit has had Mrs Rabbit do hers and he is about to see her e-mail from this morning. Rabbit would think she is closer to Nelson Mandela than Ghandi. Probably Nortjh of Rabbit. She comes from the Northern Hemisphere and Rabbit from the South, so it would be appropriate.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 20:35:39

Rabbit's turn to be facetious.
WTH
almost exclusively industrial accounts Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 20:25:57

First though Rabbit must clarify something with the David.
Rabbit has said from the start and it is good to clarify that we agree on this, that the test gives an accurate and valid set of data, for comparison.
When some, who obviously were perturbed by their results began to re-peat the test by deliberately changing the emphasis of their answers, and being so foolish as to claim they were now "happier" with their results, Rabbit pointed out that these results were worthless. For all the reasons he has since detailed. The point about dishonesty, which may or may not actually have been Rabbit's actual word from the start, was clarified better by pointing out the subjects Tainted state as a test subject, the loss of objectivity in the experiment, the subject knows how to manipulate the result and whether or not he desires to, the result is scientifically invalidated for the purposes of the experiment. Set up a new experiment by all means, and then you will get a range of results which are specific to that individual, they will if repeated even show that person's growth and development or Change over time.
Rabbit has not really been trying to say that people never change, and even when Rabbit used those exact words he included a caveat.
It all comes down to context. In the context of this experiment and it's discussion, People do not Change. Sure their attitudes may have some re-adjustment, even in a short term, but in the context of this experiment, people are going to give a true and valid response, the first time at least.
End of specific Monk message.
The arguments about the actual questions and how some were hard to answer and soem would have liked more or less choice. Some had no responses to certain questions at all. The answer is staring you in the face without even reading the FAQs, people are all different and merely trying to place them on a linear scale has not been giving an accurate picture.
This is a three dimesionsional view, in a sense, and many of you are applying two dimensional thinking to it. Your critique of the questions balance is being given even without you have seen exactly how the questions are weighted. The fact that you had no answer to some questions, and were forced to make a best choice has been allowed for, it is still a valid result. You will have put the answer you were most comfortable with.
WTH you are right, it is possible to refine the test more. But what about it as it stands, have a look at the FAQs, have you? Rabbit has only had a glance, but he only saw confirmation of what he had figured. By all means show the thing to your son, but you sound quite capable of picking up what Rabbit is saying and seeing it in a clearer light.
It is not that one cannot criticise it and we should do so, properly, but rabbit wants to be sure you at least recognise the essential validity of the things before we look at the details because it is pointless to just have one trying to prove th test is valid and the other trying to prove it is not.
Rabbit proposes it is valid to a fair degree, it gives explainable results and consistent. If we can begin from here then try and quantify it's accuracy, or otherwise.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 20:14:06

The questions WTH has identified bear discussing in light of our differing views thinks Rabbit. This is exactly what must be done if there is any doubt about the validity. Methinks it is possible to clarify much beeter and if it is as good as rabbit thinks it is worth it. It is just one experiment. It produces an impartial set of results, the results say a lot if they are accurate, so the question is how accurate.
We have had all the generic criticisms of sampling and statistics so far but not enough actual analysis of the things to justify any of those criticisms.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 19:52:37

WTH
Rabbit agreed with your view about a different scale and still would rather see a finer scale than a cruder one.
Nonetheless I feel the questions are well selected and actually many are cleverly crafted to achieve the subtle separation between the various poles even including such apparently opposed opposing views which can and often are held by Leftists despite being generally viewed as right wing. Obviously the reverse and the other variations which could make every such reference to this format complex.
There are two main reasons I feel confidant saying this.
Firstly and this is personal you can take it or leave it. Rabbit is an unusually perceptive creature about others. He is quite used to being way ahead of everybody in one area, perception of "People". this has been shown both on the internet where it is apparently only based on words, but lies or otherwise, all words carry there own meaning and so much about language is far far more than mere words. The order and choice of the words and so many other things can convey as much as the actual content of what the words were meant to convey. Not so much at a first meeting, but over time in a dialogue situation, even if that is an argument, often they are best.
So with this in mind Rabbit can say that the results appear consistent with reality as Rabbit percieves it. The evidence stands with Rabbit's prediction of yourself and he as having very similar attitudes. It is only the perception of certain facts whgich separates you and I as people, broadly speaking. Rabbit would have initially expected to be more to the left and down, much more like Luminous Beauty, but was forced to accept something he already knew and that is Rabbit yet comes from a fairly conservative background and has never quite succeeded in jumping that last cliff into the abyss of Liberal and Anarchistic abandonment. Something he has watched a few of his friends achieve over the years, and somewhat wistfully. Instead after a brief sojourn on the road, rabbit settled down and had wife and kids..................................The point is Rabbit recognised the essential truth about his deepset attitudes which were reflected in the graph results................................It becomes clearer and clearer the more results Rabbit has seen. Not the follow up testing people are doing, though that is only proving the thing more to Rabbit. It is impossible not to notice the varied reactions without excitement as a scientific mind. Provided of course one can examine the thing objectively, which is exactly what the problem is for Jay. he has already shown he has NO objectivity to speak of. It placed him exactly where he would be by Rabbit's estimation too. Rabbit has always known he was following a fantasy version of Bush. He imagines Bush is a bit right of centre, as I said before, amd he also imagines that is where he should be. He is incapable at this point of approaching the thing rationally, or anything which clashes with his pre-conceptions.
Of course it must be remembered that WTH is also quite capable of doing this, but Rabbit feels that you may actually be fairly aware of the reasonable accuracy, or at least coming to realise it. The most telling thing which must speak in my favour for you to take me seriously has got to be my recent claims of our similarity, no?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 19:45:15

Jay
Define real science.
To Rabbit who is a real scientist, or at least was, real science is open minded and tackles experimentation with a scientific attitude.
So far Rabbit analysis of the results has been real science by the definition which has served real scientists for some time now.
You are a pseudo-intellectual, and not a scientists anus. You are being patently subjective in all your criticisms and yet have failed to apply any of your criticisms to the actual question and how it relates to giving an invalid result. Has Jay read the FAQs? Would it help him? Probably not because they would require an objective analysis and Jay has an illness in this regard.
You really should stop insulting luminous Beauty who so very obviously possesses a mind which outshines your dim glow by many orders of magnitude. You do not look smarter being rude to superior people, you look even dumber, if that is possible.
You have as has been pointed out before refused to ever consider actual facts which relate to any of your opinions. If it is challenged you ignore the challenge. A good piece has been written which describes your type perfectly, Jay and it shall be re-posted after Rabbit has read the rest of the thread. This is coming from page 4, and Rabbit is about to flip the page. First he must just check something.
Showing off after Rabbit shows you had nothing which was more than ten minutes away on the net........................sigh.......Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 19:06:33

WTH:
I donPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 19:01:42

Whew, that is a lot of comment for me... and only one HTML mistake. I am learning.
Sorry if it went off onto a free will tangent but ..
I see people afraid to change. Afraid of the possibilty.
I see people who don't think it is possible for others to change.
So I went on a bit of a rant.
And hopefully everyone changes for the better.
I Will Be Who I Will To Be.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 18:44:21

Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.
People do change. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
Defending people who seek better change for themselves.
Defending people who seek better change for others.
I would hope that if someone was wrong about something that those who are right about that something would be gracious enough to allow those who were wrong to join the right position.
Would those that are right tell those who were wrong they must remain wrong.?
Sorry, change is not allowed?
Sorry, carry on being ignorant and/or deluded?
Where is the free will?
Free will exists.
Live as if we do have free will (even if it is an illusion as some may suggest)
If not, we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do.
We must treat each other as if we do have free will.
If everyone is a No Free Will Sock Puppet why bother talking?
It leads to despair and dissillusionment.
I think that we are free, and I don't think it is an illusion.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 18:26:20

Part Two ..... People do change. We do have free will.
More on the matter :
I ask Luminous Beauty : Do you think the difference between Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 18:24:19

This will be a three part post for clarity ....
Part One .... People do change. We do have free will.
Rabbit, I know you were mainly directing your words "towards the reluctant brides" .
And I am thankful for the opportunity to defend my position .... and their's too, if it happens to be mine. Uppity and Irritated. All is always forgiven. Please forgive me.
But your words, some of them, were for me too. Here is an example that struck me :
Rabbit says: "He still cannot accept the implication that dishonesty is necessarily only changing from yes to no."
Rabbit, that is not only my implication . It is my assertion on both counts.
Strong to mild and yes to no. BOTH.
People do change. We do have free will.
Maybe they don't even know they were dishonest? Maybe they are being honest now? You insinuate that they are trying to alter the results to fit their personal fantasies. Should we be hooking people up to lie detector test when they answer? Or sending them to a psychologist for ink blot tests? How do you measure strong or mild? These are personal questions and the definitions applied are personal as well. My strong may be your mild. It is all subjective if you like.
People do have free will. The test did not make them what they are. They do.
In the final analysis : This is a self examination. Honesty and reasonableness is a given if we want to relate our results to one another. I am honest and trust that others are as well. If they are not ... what can I do except be, hopefully, a good example. Hope for the best and believe who you will, subjectively of course.
People do change. We do have free will.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 18:23:11

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 2:44 PM
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-24 17:02:56

ibertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.

No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
What's your point?
(no facetious intent here, just an honest question).Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 16:46:25

Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isnPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 14:52:53

Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research.
You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done.
Not really. More of a challenge to put up or shut up. I took the chance of being wrong, but I really liked the odds. Still do.
My error was in thinking you were the one with the statistician son. That you made the assertion of it being unscientific with zero, zip, zilch, nada argumentation for that assertion is well documented. Have you done the research and analysis? In this I believe have a more than high likelihood of being correct when I say, I didn't think so.
Putting theory ahead of facts.
Better than putting my head so far up my ass I see daylight.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 14:48:09

Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass.....If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn't clarity in my book...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 14:15:49

" Or a psychologist "
Maybe we all need to take some ink blot tests too !?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 14:15:19

I think it might help if you understood the shaded italicized words Neo-Liberalism (libertarianism) are examples meant to clarify what is the actual label, i.e. 'Right'. Right? Right.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 14:01:32

Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.

:)Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 13:53:42

It doesnPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 13:52:39

Jay:
Perhaps you could send an email to the PC folks, and tell them you find the libertarian/libertarianism thing confusing. they just might change it to Randian Objectivism or some such. Or they might just laugh their asses off.
Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 13:48:17

Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?

Absolutely. But this isn't about my personal beliefs, but the legitimacy of the compass. If there are left libertarians, I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian?
The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 13:45:40

But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.>
To repeat myself, Libertarianism is obviously referring to the CapitalistLibertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?
Libertarian is one pole of a spectrum whose other end is Authoritarian. It's the up/down spectrum, not the left/right spectrum. I can keep this up all day. We can see who throws up first.
You donPosted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 13:24:29

Where your argument breaks down, WTH, is that these aren't questions with a limited range of answers of which one may choose, they are statements to which one can agree or disagree. This removes the subjective bias for which the ordinary run of surveys, particularly the kind of push polls used in advertising and political campaigns, are so famously and justly susceptible. You might like to consult your son. Or a psychologist. Not because I think you're crazy, you understand. To get a perspective on subjective bias that an advertising person, whose job as I understand it is to create subjective bias, might not have.
It's a shame advertisers in Britain can't use sex to get women drunk. I'm appalled. On the bright side, maybe old and bald will become the new 'sexy'.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 12:44:20

It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views.

Thus my objection to the questions and the map onto which the answers are plotted.
Why is voluntary collectivism a LEFT view co-opted by the RIGHT? To assume otherwise is to ascribe a libertarian view strictly to the RIGHT.
But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.

Again with the (selective-jc) reading comprehension.

Further,

Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son? Where am I critical of statisticians?

Through his alleged incompetence, which you presumed to be the only one with special knowledge of.

Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment. Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics? I didnPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 12:40:37

Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 9:23 AM
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-24 11:55:35

Hi Luminous Beauty
I don't like the simpler cruder test you linked either. They call the test " The World's Smallest Political Quiz " and they are not exaggerating. Too simple and crude.
Thanks for your answers, as always, they were illuminating.
One of your answers had a thought that started me thinking on another tangent. I will think about it today and post my thoughts later. Thank you again.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 11:55:34

I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass...
It's presumptive and dishonest to change the definition of the right pole to individual rights rather than individual competition, which is how they define it if you could read.
What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
According to the site, it can be either. Again with the reading comprehension.
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
No. It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views. Does the prospect scare you?
The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?
Libertarianism is obviously referring to the Libertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. I'm a left libertarian. Do you think you can call me on it? Why don't you study the whole site instead of making foolish assumptions from such a casual reading?
(straw man) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Exactly.
Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son? Where am I critical of statisticians?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 11:53:19

Hi, David. Happy to be here.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
I think the results are different snapshots in time. As the variation is <1 the differences are probably insignificant.
Do you think the difference between Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 11:14:06

Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore?

No, I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass, but completely destroys the whole point of pulling the LEFT/RIGHT divide on a thusly irrelevant axis.
The creator eliminates the whole point of the multidimensional spectrum.
Additional, and besides the point, that is yet another clear example of the failure of this questionnaire. What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
The compass fails to differentiate between charity and government. And anyone listening to the LEFT on that issue knows there is a vast difference.
My finding of unscientific rests on the blatant failures of this system. Had there been real science behind it (or even a modicum of common sense), such obvious failings would have been avoided.

The lower, libertarian hemisphere is divided into right libertarian and left libertarian.

The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?

You donPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 11:01:37

From wikepedia:
The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion
It seems to me that merely asserting that something is 'unscientific' is about as weak an argument as one can make. Hard to make a straw man argument if that is the case. Prove me wrong if you can, or you aren't too lazy.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 10:19:07

Luminous Beauty,
Good to see you here on this thread.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
Do you think the difference between "strongly agree" and "agree" is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?
Do you think that a simpler, cruder test with only "agree" or "disagree" is a valid option and worthy of consideration?
Do people change?
I think they can and do. Some for the better and some not.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-24 10:08:28

And careless, obviously.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 09:56:55

Yeah, I'm> lazy.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 09:56:12

1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test)
This is evidence that people are fuzzy on the concept. Could you be more obtuse?
2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact?
Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore? What are you saying? Do you know? I don't. Multidimensionality requires at least two axes in a Cartesian system. Perhaps you could redesign it using polar co-ordinates or vectors. that would be interesting.
3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 09:53:04

Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual.
Apologies. By deliberately falsely calling those exams populist, I am actually calling (smearing, actually) the compass as populist and indicative of everything pop culturalist.
In other words, its only claim to credibility is as a pseudointellectual parlor game. Fun, to be sure.
Sorry for having to dumb that up, but you didn't seem to be getting the point.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 09:46:25

lb, I think your laziness is endemic to your entire line of thinking...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 09:31:37

Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.
and
Not having a statistician son doesnPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 09:29:21

Not having a statistician son doesn't give your opinion much scientific standing, does it? Maybe it was WTH.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 09:19:03

Sorry, Jay, I must have confused you with some other fool.
I'm feeling too lazy to backtrack, this morning. What is a 'populist' standardized test? Are you referring to the SAT? Stanford-Binet? Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual. C'mon yerself. Just because it has a website doesn't make it junk either, does it?
I re-took the test. My score was -6.25, -6.21. A bit more centrist than what I remember from when I took it last winter. I was originally surprised myself that I was tagged as such a radical. I know my political idealism is anarchistic, but I like to think of myself as pragmatic and realistic. I've since come to realize there isn't that much difference.
The Iconochasm quiz on the PC site is an interesting test of political knowledge. I scored ~56%. Tough.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 09:08:05

And he is a statistician??
Ah, I always knew he'd make us proud. Just wish I could remember his name....Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 08:47:35

Yes, of course. This is a very scientific polling with scientific credentials and all the populist college standardized tests have cultural bias.
Silly me. I mixed the two up.
C'mon. Just because it has a website doesn't make it valid.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 08:09:57

I have a son?!Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 08:08:08

If you want to educate yourself on some of the thinking involved, HERE is a place to start.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 07:57:13

Jay:
Why do you think the PC poll is unscientific. Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment. Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics? I didn' t think so.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-10-24 07:23:08

It Takes a Parent by Betsy Hart. I saw a speech she did recently. One wonders why it took so long for a parent to stand up and tell the politicians (Clinton and Santorum) how to raise kids.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 06:57:18

from the FAQ at Political Compass :
Question : "Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct."
Like the test itself, this is too sweeping.
Some will Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-24 06:42:05

But there is nothing wrong with choosing a real life hero as a Super Hero. Even Superman had his kyptonite and Achilles had his heel.
That only makes them more deserving of Super Hero status.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 06:33:31

As it happens RabbitPosted by whattheheck on 2005-10-24 06:32:14

As I read David's commentary in reflection of Rabbit, I cannot help but note that it seems incredible that for someone who so ardently rejects official explanations as intrinsically untrustworthy, that Rabbit would put so much naive credence into such an obviously unscientific polling.
Where is his self-laudable skepticism?
Of course, I am only seeing one side of the discourse, so profuse apologies for gross mischaracterization, if I am guilty of such a crime.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-24 06:31:36

Posted by GhostRabbit on October 22, 2005 at 10:12 PM from HERE .
re: WSC
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-24 06:27:27

Sorry again if Rabbit seems Uppity and he knows Monk is as irritated with his hopping as Rabbit is with Monks hanging, but the sum total of the discussion pleases Rabbit, and he apologises...............^>.............for his impatience.
It is mainly towards the reluctant brides that his Rabbiting was directed anyway,......... in absentia maybe?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-24 00:22:14

Rabbit didn't actually expect anybody would waste time re-testing to see how to reproduce the far right wing beasts, assuming this to be rhetorical. The tendencies would have to have been apparent enough and fresh enough in peoples minds thought Rabbit. Maybe he overestimates humans......................... The fact is that even with such deliberately slanted results, pandering to vanities as they were, no-one came close to the ones in the extreme.
It all adds up. People just can't.
Objective------------------------------------SubjectivePosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 23:36:28

Rabbit understands this and your stance.
He still cannot accept the implication that dishonesty is necessarily only changing from yes to no. The simple fact is that there are some people who would feel more strongly than another but both agree with the principle. by coming around a second time and giving adifferent answer having already seen the results of the first test, makes the "re-testing" worthless as a scientific tool. Then all the criticisms which have been attempted of the testing method, could be levelled with accuracy.
The difference is as simple as the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. The first results were objectively obtained. The secons results were by definition subjective. the subject could deliberately concentrate on giving the best most heart felt answers as Rabbit did, but even this lacked the objectivity of the first test, despite the results being identical. Rabbit was deliberately being "objective", impossible for the aware subject.
The others were honest but were seeking to reproduce their fantasised positions in relation to their fantasised facts.
See above comment.
All the following discussion about there being any value in re-testing with different premises, ie; altering the controlled structure of the experiment, results in a dilutionPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 23:32:49

Rabbit, I will repeat myself.
I do not disagree with my original resluts. The results are accurate.
I am not / was not criticizing the test or the propositions of the test.
I do not deny that second or third results can be deliberately altered. The results can be altered by dishonest methods or honest methods. I altered my results by the adjusting the degree of conviction, ie. mild or strong, and was still HONEST to my answers in respect to Agree or Disagree.
Do you see what I am saying? I cannot speak for the others who retested. Ask them if they were honest. I was.
I retested to see what would happen with the VALID experiment that Jay had suggested. Answer "strongly" only. You suggested the VALID experiment of retesting to try to produce alternative / opposite results as well.
Obviously these results would be tainted with preconceptions.
Obviously the new results are not as much use as the first.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 23:21:27

Can Monk imagine George Bush or Johnny Howhard seeing their results and then re-sitting the test?
Robert Mugabe?
How much use would the new results be?
Now our own little conservatives have had their go, and they didn't like being so close to us, they wanted to be closer to their imagined idols. Not knowing as we know that their imagined idols are complete extremists. They don't recognise the extreme of their own side, we know that, we have seen it before, of course they are actually closer to us than they thought and of course their imagined Idols are a lot different to what they thought. Can't you see monk, they expected to find Bush a bit right of centre, and themselves too. They did not, because we have been right all along. Rabbit calls Own Goal for our side and awards a penalty to the other team. They now get a free kick and an excuse to pull away from recognising their emperor has no clothes, and that their cause has been hijacked.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 22:53:13

This is basic animal behiourology. Press a button for a reward, press another button for a electric shock, which one do you choose? Think ...............MONK..................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 22:42:37

Yes David we all had our reservations after the test, but they are all answered in the FAQs you were the one who pointed this out the first time.
The specific questions, bring them out and compare them with your generic criticisms.
Rabbit does not suggest the revised results are of no use, they say much.
Rabbit questioned the format, looked at it and decided it was best practice, under the circumstances. . A second and a third or fourth set of answers are going to do no more than show how the results can be altered by the subject 'deliberately ' aletering them from within the experiment...........at this point the validity of the resluts as a political comparison tool is lost............
Has the Monk read back over the questions and tried to imagine how they could be dealt with except by giving the best answer? Like Rabbit says again, generic critique of any sampling process is of no value, as a critique of this test unless it is applied directly to a question, now which question was presented in such a way that the answering of it would have given a false picture of what the test set out to discover.
The re-testing with pre-conceptions, thus TAINTED is only of value in showing how much people disgreed with their first result and consequently how well they are able to recognise how to manipulate the result via new answers. ........... KNOCK........ KNOCKPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 22:39:22

Of oneself and others too.
Better try to understand yourself before you try to understand others.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 22:31:08

And it is not criticism of the test either. It is enthusiasm for the test. Taking the test and seeing what it can teach one about oneself.
It is revealing.
It is an opportunity for learning or at least understanding and maybe enlightenment.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 22:28:18

Please understand that I too think the original results are the most accurate.
The end result is something of a median or average based on the individually weighted propositions and responses.
But there is room for movement based on the degree of conviction given to the agree or disagree positions on the individual propositions.
The same " degree of conviction/room for movement " is available for study in the revised results. I find that movement interesting and retesting illustrates it.
Same side of the Agree/Disagree fence and only nearer or farther from it. Or is it that the fence has moved?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 22:02:47

Rabbit,
When we first started criticizing and people, you included, suggested that a wider choice of possible responses might be better.
Political Compass FAQ :
" In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude. "One expert in the field suggested that we restrict the responses to simply 'agree' and 'disagree'. But how many do you need? Ten? Twenty? If you choose the one that most nearly reflects your feeling, you'll get an accurate reading...even if it niggles. "
The "niggling" is there. We are talking about people. Not chemical reactions in a test tube.
By taking the test over and sticking with our Agree or Disagree answer and "jiggling" the results by playing with "strong" and "mild" responses we are , as you say " learn[ing] something new " and not, as you say " answering the test in a different way " .
The Agree or Disagree answer has remained the same. The degree of conviction for that Agree or Disagree answer is what has changed.
And the end result has not necessarily changed.
I don't think my revised results are more valid than the original.
Just interesting and something to consider.
Call that " silly " or " troll tricks " if you will but I do not think that is a fair characterization.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 21:16:32

Rabbit,
Have you never reconsidered?
Have you never agreed with a proposition and upon a better understanding of that proposition agreed more strongly? Or less strongly?
Have you never been wrong?
Generalities maybe. How is this for specific?
Are "agree" and "strongly agree" on the same side of the fence?Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 20:52:06

Rabbit was feeling too lazy to think that hard, so don't make him stamp his foot as well now it is done.
........^^........Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 20:13:10

OK of course Attitudes change, but not from one sitting of the test to the next. Go out and live a bit, learn something new, and some of your attitudes will of course change, but that is not the same as answering the test in a different way. The actual questions have to be considered in light of your criticisms which are as Rabbit pointed out generalities.
An actual analysis of the test would do this, but raising the actual criteria which had to be taken into account when designing the experiment, is not an analysis it is merely a refrain about what sort of problems are faced by investigators when designing such a test. Examine the questions in light of how they stack up to such criteria on an individual basis maybe, and if they are found wanting then criticise them.
Rabbit has judged all these factors and can see the investigators have taken them into account answering all the queries in their FAQs.
Generic criticism is troll tricks, Monk what have you been eating?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 20:10:09

David you are being fooled by circular logic I think.
Read what Rabbit said slowly. It isn't about opinions, I don't think, Rabbit could indeed and has gotten the same result the second time, he just did, and like before answered gave the best answer for me. Identical result. Rabbit is a scientist, in the loose term of the word and can assure you that the questions are questions about fundamental attitudes, as removed from political leanings. Since people can and do change their beliefs, but they don't actually change inside, once they have established those fundamnetal attitudes, which are no less than the things which could define adulthood.
Before trying to challenge this idea, consider this example, could a child answer most or even any of the questions with any hope of comprehension? Could any adult fail to comprehend exactly what the question entailed?
Then by logical extension we have placed all adults into the position of having to give the most accurate account of their attitudes. As Rabbit first observed he would have liked a less committed answer once or twice, and obviously others wanted similar, WTH made the most logical improvement and it was and remains a good idea but may complicate the calculations, Rabbit recognises Logarithims from a distance usually and avoids them. This however is the opposite of the crudifying you are now arguing in favour of. Yes is yes, but a bit is less than a lot. You are actually reversing your own position on this, from your earlier wiser defence of the test. You started doing so thinks Rabbit in defence of others who were actually set to gain otherwise from the realisation that their true attitudes are not reflected in their chosen politics, Rabbit respectfully asks the MONK to consider this. You introduced the test which imediately brought about a growing sense of unity as people recognised certain basic truths, the dawning of them anyway.
They employed their natural tendency to deny the valisity of anything which challenges them on their ideas, and this was meant to do so in an obviously good direction, and now they have been fed in their doubts and are absolved from having to take any further notice of some very strikinmg results and I've already proved they were predicatble and nobody has even challenged Rabbit on this. They cannot because he has proof, Rabbit's postings of last several weeks have indeed highlighted certian results reflected in those scores.
The two who might have gained from a logical step backwards through their own selves, without the interference of political ideology, and thus have found the truth from within, have now abandoned ship, it was close, but no they are free again. Free to be ignorant.
Better read the Screwtape Letters
That quote blows your position out of the water, you silly Monkey, that is what Rabbit has been trying to tell you. Your other what if questions of second last post are general only and are the sorts of things the peole who set up the test had to take into account when setting up the test.
Now read all Rabbit's responses on this like a good monkey and stop being a weird fish. It is late down there, ..............Rabbit looks up......Yes we have the sun........it is late,....... The Monk would not be slightly stoned? Rabbit is fresh as the daisies and is cooking boats.
He is pretty sure Monk is being a wobbly fish, maybe it is the fish in you which feels pity for the prey just before it goes into the net, you need to make a hole for it to escape. We don't want them to grow bigger here Monk, we must land the fish and move on.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 19:57:18

Back to the Political Compass test, Rabbit says :
You get one chance and unless you answered dishonestly the first time, this is IT. Everything after is Tainted
Just to clarify :
Yes to No would be dishonest. But even dishonest can become honest after regret. Honest can become dishonest too.
Just to repeat :
A strong Yes and a mild Yes are still both Yes. same goes for No.
Tainted yes, but I am tainted all the time, it never stops. I don't exist in a vacuum.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 19:42:01

I am not sure if that supports my position or not. hehe
Just throwing it out there.
To bring this Political Compass cogent tangent (nice paradox there) back to the topic of the Partisan War Syndrome :
Let's hope that people and politcians who support the war, or think they supported the war, change their answer from YES to NO.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 18:52:38

from the FAQ at Political Compass :
Question : "Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct."
Answer : " Not really, because we've assured them that not only are their identities unknown, but their responses totally unrecorded. So the only actual pressure will come from themselves. We've found that a lot of people aren't comfortable with the first result, so they go through the propositions again, changing some of their earlier responses. It's a bit like an overweight person stepping back on the scales after removing their shoes. "Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 18:40:31

YES is YES.
Agree = Yes
Strongly agree = Yes
The answer to a given proposition has not changed from YES to NO. Or vice versa.
The variation in nuance from mild agreement to strong agreement of those YES or NO answers is interesting and I think it is valid.
The original results are the truest results ... at least until there are new results.
When taking the test the second time anwering "strong" always, on several questions I was not sure what my original response had been. I knew that my answer had been YES or NO but was unsure if it had been mild or strong. This happened mostly on those questions where if there had been a "no opinion/not sure" answer available I may have been tempted to sit on the rhetorical fence.
Not answering from memory but from the heart : Does anyone think if they took the test again that they could produce exactly the same result as they did originally?
Wouldn't a different set of questions produce a different result? But I digress...
Regarding the "mild or strong response" : Wouldn't a good day as opposed to a bad day produce different results? Would't having a beer or a coffee while taking the test produce different results?
Discoveries lead to new discoveries and so on. Each revision brings a reconception of ourselves. We are talking about people here. Not cold hard science.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 18:35:01

BTW Monk.....rabbit didn't mean to be UPPITY even if it sounded so, he knows you are genuine in desire to find middle ground always, it is just that here you are removing the middle ground to allow soimeone to adjust their results to better attend their pre-concieved notions about the world.
The fine distinction is predictably lost on the subjects, but it is beautiful in symmetry when seen from an objective standpoint.
And yes, Rabbit's view is objective, he is satisfied with all results, can see a pattern in the confusion which in all cases explains why the person is able to understand or not their results. he is waiting for someone like Luminous Mind or Neruda, maybe Whit will catch on, expecting they have not seen this stage of the exchange yet and when they do, expect a better explanation.
In the mean time, Rabbit thought the Monk had it from the start, because his advice was the best, go back and read the FAQs.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 18:26:33

No the revised scores are where you would be if you were someone else.
The original answers were the most pure. Now for non-science minded people this may need to be explained, but to any scientific mind the answer is obvious.
You now know the test, the results and anything you do from here on to alter your original result is of absolutely NO use to the experiment. You are now Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 18:19:26

There is a difference between agree and strongly agree. It is still as YES.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 17:18:31

No the revised scores are where one would be if one was someone else!Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 17:01:15

I think it does help. Yes yes yes.
My Personal Political Compass becomes my Personal Political Spectrum.
After all you use a compass to get from A to B ... and maybe C.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 16:50:04

" Now Rabbit seePosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-23 16:31:09

Jay,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-23 06:21:37

There is always the old ignore the uncomforable thing game. After a while you then start claiming we cannot prove anything and there is no need to waste time looking at anything which is given because nothing can be known and yet you seem so sure of what you know?
You will duck and dive, twist and turn to avoid just READING THE DAMNED article, and facing up to it's claims, challenge their validity if you can, or see with open eyes that you are worshipping another flawed man. Flaws are OK, but when those flaws make a mockery of all the symbolism of the person's life, then you are being clowns to pretend otherwise.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 06:18:42

As for "put down lines" try George Galloway, he could eat Churchill for breakfast.
Are we ignoring any history contrary to our small ideas like good little revisionists then?
Half the story is still only half the story.
If you ignore enough other history you could claim Hitler was just a pretty lousy painter who later rose to prominance in German politics.
Churchill is not so pretty when you learn the truth, but who wants truth when you have a comfortable fantasy eh guys?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-23 06:12:51

Jay,
"I canPosted by whattheheck on 2005-10-23 05:47:48

Rabbit wishes not to have said anything about being
Proud and humble it comes out all wrong. Scratch scratch...........it won't come off.
Happy Hopper Humble is
Proud to still be happy
humble and hopping.
................................................................^^...............................................Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 23:56:55

Sorry but meant to mean Rabbit is an Aussie, not the big fat man who was a Pommie as far as Rabbit knows.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 23:51:24

Now the following is not to annoy WTH, or Jay, but if we are to use our new-found respect for one another to advantage, we are going to have to deal with certain things as they arise. Some things we can easily hold different views on, but FACTS, some of them at least are important. Rabbit will openly discuss and values alternative views about anything, but when false facts are taken for granted, the whole point of dicussion goes out the window.
If WINSTON CHURCHILL was not exactly the storybook version, if the simple version about him was not only partly false, but if it was only the tip of an iceberg about the truth, would you want to know?
Rabbit is not asking if you would believe anything else, but would you want to know IF it was so?
If one wants to believe in a fantasy hero, what is wrong with Superman or Batman? OK Rabbit knows what is wrong with Batman, anyway why not just have an imaginary hero and be done with it.
Rabbit already knows all about Winston Churchill, he is an Aussie, OK and he is a much closer part of our history, Oz was part of the British empire at least in spirit (Not officially of course) and we went to war the same day as Churchill declared it too. Yes Rabbit knows all about him from the usual history books.
Rabbit knows more though. Rabbit has read other books which have more of the story and he has read much more on the internet too. Please do not discard this info without reading it. Rabbit is not saying read it with an open mind, that is something which will come with practice hopefully, open mindedness. Read it with closed minds, just read it, and if you cannot accept something it says, be honest enough to challenge the fact directly, but unless you can show it is false, give Rabbit or others the chance to show it is otherwise. We may be wrong, then we may have to re-consider too. We will not change as people, or Rabbits, but we may form new ideas or even discard some old ones, pending new ones.
It is a single source, randomly selected from a google of key words Rabbit slotted in. This is important to be aware of, for Rabbit has never previously even seen the site, he just knows this information, is readily available and this was a start. You don't have to waste time with it, ask Rabbit and he will find much more substantial verification of anything you desire about the story of Churchill.
Open mindedness just means to Rabbit, giving anything fair consideration, and if it seems possible and nothing Rabbit KNOWS contradicts it then Rabbit will then try and fit this information into his sum knowledge as a possibility. Sometimes this idea clashes with other ideas and this can lead to Rabbit deciding to apply more energy to ascertainming which if either idea needs discarding. It is a simple process, and it means that although many opinions are held, many others are actually with-held, pending more information, but this means Rabbit can often prove why some ideas are not adequate, despite not always having a ready replaement..
It is not really more scary to live in a world where many unknowns are accepted, it is much less scary than the thought of being blind or ignorant again in such a scary world.
Rabbit simply accepts that there is much more in the universe that we don't know than what we do know. Also half of what we know is wrong. This isn't an excuse to stay ignorant, it is an inducement to stay humble.
Rabbit is a very humble creature.
Rabbit is a very proud creature too.
Do we undertstand the two are self multiplying?Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 20:12:20

Now Rabbit see's you are all answering 'strongly' as if that is helping. NO NO NO
All you are doing is making the test more crude. You are trying to make things more clear cut, simple and that is not what it is all about. If you keep going in this direction the logical result will be a Left/Right linear scale again.
People are searching for ways to make their scores fit into their preconceptions about where they stood in relation to each other and the world. It is very clear to Rabbit that the original scores are immensely telling. Some must be able to see what Rabbit sees here. Look, Jay and WTH are as we know (sorry guys) seriously misinformed about a few critical issues, which of themselves make a paradigm shifting view of GWB and the current world politics etc. WE KNOW THIS RIGHT? Therefore, since this survey was testing the ATTITUDES of people, independant of their politics, it is placing them relative to each oher in REAL POLITICS.
Cannot we understand the fact of a Liberal holding to a conservative plan if he percieved in that plan something else entirely? Therfore if WTH and Jay are wrong about their own politics, (sorry guys) then they are going to be somewhere else entirely. Rabbit would even go so far as to suggest that the better one recognises one's own landing point on the graph, the more in tune one is with what is happening in the world.
Rabbit is desperate for a finer mind than his to clarify this, it is not hard to understand if we could communicate via telepathy, it is the words which are harder to come by.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 19:32:51

The test is not liberal. Rabbit found the questions about economics for example to be too conservative in answer choice. The slant was conservative.
If we are right, and Bush is a liar, a facsist etc, then you would not be anywhere near supporting him, that is what must be considered. the Graph gives a result which is entirely understandable to us, that is not meaning that it is a liberal test. It suggests to Rabbit only that you and Jay are not really Fascists, or inhumane greedy pigs. Yet the issues you regularly support are policies of inhumanity, fascism and greed.
Sorry to say it so, but there is no other way. The thing which this survey has done, is to show these things to be so. Rabbit is finding his own explanation of this to be less than satisfactory. Surely Luminous Beauty or Neruda can say it better?
Perhaps this helps........Jay especially probably thinks that the extreme right is a lot less extreme than it is. You think you are right wing economically but in fact, since the left is actually not as extreme in this regard as you think, and more because the Right is MUCH more extreme than you think, you are more centrist on economics. Frankly most of the economic policies you Jay and WTH have ascribed to others of us have not been close to the mark. We are mostly more conservative than you realise, ie: closer to you two.
Jay stop contorting yourself to move closer to Bush, accept the bastard for what he is, and move on.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 19:19:32

Regarding compulsory voting. Yes Oz and i think Britain too has compulsory voting. Whilst growing up Rabbit was against this. Having travelled widely and knowing what i now do about other countries politics, I have changed my opinion about it. True and it was always Rabbit's contention, that many people who have not even considered who or why they are voting end up having an effect on the result. Rabbit hears some of the things said by 'ordinary people' and shudders to think that they have the same amount of say in who will be the government as Rabbit.
Yet it is no a better situation to give them a choice of not voting. The result ends up being a government selected by less than the whole nation. It might sound better to have 50% of informed voters deciding, than mix up the other 50% of ill informed voters with their choices, possibly tipping the balance against the informed ones. The thing is, those informewd voters do not necessarily know the truth or make the best decision either. Better in the long run to be able to say that 100% of the people took part in the election, than to say our leadership was elected by a poll of half the population. Just because those who choose think they know best, does not mean they do. Compulsory voting is I think a better way to defend a democracy against, well what you guys have in your system. It looks messy and inneficient, and not at all inspiring. The polititicians do have to consider the whole nation leading up to elections, they cannot afford to concentrate on getting their people to vote. All will be voting which means in effect all eyes are on all of them. In the end it is an incentive to take a bit of notice too, I Think Aussies are generally more aware of their government and it's antics.
WTH observations about the survey and survey in general is agreed also, yet Rabbit would argue that this survey holds water. My point still being that the questions and interpretations will be standard for all responders. The limitations of surveys as such are here, but as a survey, for the purposes of comparison it is adequate. One of the primary reasons rabbit feels this is so, is because the results conform with his own observations.
Jay getting a different score by forcing his own responses on things, gives more clues too. He has admittedly forced his answers to be stronger, and thus managed to get a score which he considers to be more accurate of his economic position. The first test was your true result, Jay. that is where you stand in relation to the test as it is designed. Your second score ony moved further to the extreme on economics, and th fact that the social score stayed the same is VERY telling. This actually supports Rabbit's contention that you are tending in belief towards some peoples ideas because you percieve them to be other than what they are. Bush for example is not who you think he is. Thus to make him more like you, or you more like him, you need to force something which is not natural to you.
In fact Bush and those in the right top quadrant are a lot more extreme and in directions of which you have been unaware. It has become obvious to rabbit that both you guys are saying the same things as us, you are just believing that we have different views than we have, and that is only because we clearly distance ourselves from the leaders you think are something trhey are not.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 19:15:26

... and that too is why I agree, in reference to Political Compass results :
Strongly agree and agree, and the converse, are a little like equivocal, nuanced hedges. Cutting both ways of course.
I would be happy with a YES/AGREE or NO/DISAGREE response to the Political Compass experimentPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 19:11:01

Whattheheck and Rabbit,
Agreed. Political Correctness is like a fence to sit on or play on.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 19:00:27

For clarity : My last post was directed at Skullker, as a continuation of my first response.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 18:48:20

We have the same situation in Canada.
Our main parties have long since sold their souls, whether they know it or not. Even our third part show signs of slavery to elitist interests.
There are fourth and fifth parties on the horizon here in Canada. They are gaining support. Hopefully they remain true to their ideals and resist the temptations for corruption that power brings.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 18:45:58

Please excuse Rabbit's confusion over PC. Rabbit was still talking about the Political Compass, thought that was the PC ref.
As WTH should know about Rabbit by now, he too loathes Political Correctness. Only people unsure of their own feelings get caught up in PC silliness. So PC is SILLY, agreed.
WTH You and Rabbit could be twins, except Rabbit would be the twin who prefers abit of Happy Baccy to Tobacco. Smoked Tobacco for a couple of years, and found it to be the most physically damaging thing and the most addictive crap ever tried. Rabbit has always been able to take or leave anything, but Tobacco was hard going.
Rabbit enjoys a cold beer or six a few times a year, but definately would swap them all for a couple shots of GOOD Whisky. It doesn't get much better than Jack Daniels either. Only a dash of coke, or on the rocks of course. Southern Comfort is too sweet.
Of course the problem with prisons and law enforcment generally is all the "civilians" caught up in the "War on Drugs" The chief of Danish police once made a statement along these lines. Paraphrased.
"If drugs are a problem of themselves then they are a social problem. The police have more than enough to do attempting to control serious crime, we are no longer interested in wasting resources chasing people for using illicit drugs. It is to be hoped that scoial and political forces can sort out the issues involved, but in the meantime this is the position of the Danish police."Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 18:44:20

Hello Skullker
Thanks for the clarity. I agree.
UP THE REVOLUTION !!Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 18:12:28

BOTH main parties are corrupt,they no longer represent the people.
A third party must be put into power to shock them to their senses.
The democrats' clinton ,she has not come out against the war,she clearly has no morals stating that the main thing is to make sure that the boys didn't die in vain .Well hello ,does this mean more have to die in vain so we can pretend the others didn't die in vain?
the Republicans have let BUSH lead them into this war ,while the congress played dead and the democrats rolled over.
Both parties are now clearly bought by the ELITE
as such neither can ever be trusted again.
So whats next ,your guess is as good as mine.Posted by skullker on 2005-10-22 18:07:53

whattheheck,
Thanks for the recommendation! I had seen the book in passing before, but I am always leery of laying down money on kiss 'n tell books without getting a good unbiased recommendation from someone. I will take a look!
My all time Churchillian favorite is Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all those tried so far (again, or something similiar!). Not only does the Stand-Up Democrat grab you with that straight-line, but the philosophy behind it is so timeless, and timely. Winston could really grab an audience. I can't wait to read Franklin and Churchill. Two peas-in-a-pod politicians, if there ever was.
You might want to take a look at Port McClellan for occasional Churchill chatter. The proprietors over there are admirers of the Lion as well, though be warned; even with a modified eco score from -1.07 to 2.75, I am still a little to the left of center, though by no means the token left... Interesting site. I've taken up residence there for the time being (at the sufferance of the proprietors! though they don't seem to mind). I still wish the Left2Right blog was still active. Now that was a lively straight-up site!
I'd taken a couple short trips to London, decades ago. Compared to other European cities, this one isn't. A city, that is. Somehow, London never lost its English village charm, just grew out and up and modernized. Sort of like New York.
btw, Paris, surprisingly, is my favorite. A Francophile I am NOT! But I fell in love anyway as we drove into the city on a quiet early morning Friday. And we didn't get any sleep until we left Monday afternoon! French politics leave me cold, but one on one, the people are as lively as they get.
I took a two week jaunt once up into East Anglica through Cambridge and stopping at Hadrian's Wall before heading up towards Edinburgh and then to Lock Ness. Driving back up and over the enormous ice cream scoop shaped barren mountains of the Highlands and into the Moors was something I will never forget. I can still see the heather and hear the wail of the bagpipes played at a pullover rest stop.
Oh, to have a summer of hiking them hills!
I made a stop at an old WWII RAF Airbase. I am intrigued by the history of the RAF and the USAAF, particularly the US 8th Air Force. Too many movies like Command Decision and Twelve O'Clock High, I fear. Being stationed in Germany for three years only reinforced that affliction. My landlord was a tank driver for Rommel. When I could understand his Bavarian German, he told some good stories...
Oh, and family lore has it that one branch on my maternal side had a lassie from the Isle of Wight kidnapped by Viking interlopers some fifteen hundred years ago. Not sure how many great-greats that makes her, or of the veracity of that story.
sufrensucatash@yahoo.comPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-22 16:42:10

Or if they are a problem or an enemy, real or perceived :
I do not or try not to treat them any differently than I would treat a solution or my friend.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 16:38:51

"How silly of me ... "
Or missing your point?
We all answered the same questions. Each to their own self.
I don't consider those that have different answers a problem or my enemy.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 16:30:48

Jay,
Come on.
Maybe I am missing the point too.
Questions always good. Acussations not so much so.
How silly of me ...Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 16:24:53

To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point
Ah, yes, of course. If I disagree, if I question, the problem is not the questionee, but the questioner.
How silly of me...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-22 15:47:45

I encourage everyone to read the Political Compass FAQ (frequently asked questions).
"But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate."Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 13:14:45

Always answer "Strongly" strategy results :
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31
Moved little further left economic. Moved much further libertarian.
Here are my original results :
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 12:53:50

Re-took the political compass but this time using Jay's "strongly" strategy to answer all quesions:
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social libertarian/authoritarian: -6.72
Center-left economically and quite libertarian socially.
After a little bit of introspection, I can honestly say that really does capture my perspective pretty well.Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-22 09:22:15

Jay Cline,
Thanks for the British parties connection.
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-22 08:32:42

Taking David's suggestion to try Rabbit's Contrarian Test, I soon realized that in being contrary, I was always selecting Strongly, whether it was in agreement or not. Perhaps because I am more familiar to my own nuances than others who do not share my point of view.
So, I stopped and took the test for myself again, but instead of wanting more options, I stuck with a Strongly strategy. It soon became apparent that the fuzziness of the test is more from the equivocal statements I was responding to, rather than my own. The test is too liberal (absolutely NO pun intended) with words like "some" and "usually". A couple questions even twist equivocal statements with equivocality.
Anyway, I am much happier with the results.
Eco at 2.75; Social at -1.13
By the way, my last score was the result of taking the test twice and still getting essentially the same score.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-22 08:24:04

When Churchill was criticized for switching parties Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-22 07:56:29

Rabbit,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-22 06:36:32

Rabbit,
?
"PC is not silly, the proof is in the fact that it conforms to prediction.Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-22 05:30:39

It is a VALID experiment.
Actually the more Rabboit looks at it the more convinced he has become that even his first reservations may have been unjustified.
First reaction, during the actual answering stage, was that I sought a more nuanced answer from time to time. Upon second thoughts, I realised then and more so now, it would then introduce a differnt and much more difficult to calculate scale, I think it might end up introducing logarithms into the thing then and that gets weird. Maybe not but Rabbit always shies away from too precise mathematical thinking. There will always be such feelings for a random few questions by anyone, but the variation though only on a scale from +10 to -10, or whatever it was, is no less valid as a comparison because it is a graduated scale, which has been arrived at via a mean of testing across a previously identified group of question/responses.
This is called changing ones mind and it isn't done to annoy you WTH, Rabbit hopes you are seeing the logic here, it is rather effective really.
As a basis for political comparison, this is a very excellent tool....................Says Rabbit............Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-22 01:16:28

Jay,
Quoting from your blog, I like the name " sufrensucatash " by the way.
You describe yourself : " I am: progressive, not a wild-eyed Progressive; liberal, but shun liberals and Liberals; conservative, but some Conservatives worry me; libertarian who won't privatize first responders. I am: an idealist, but no utopian; a pragmatist, but no Machiavellian. I am a realist who dreams. "
It is good to see that you will admit to a variety of labels for your variety of views. It is good to see that you are an idealist and a realist. I like ideals as well. I am certain we have the important ones in common, all people do even if they don't know it. Reality is OK. Dreaming is better.
So keeping in mind your multifaceted definition of yourself ..
Re: Political Compass
You said : " It is flawed; the creator is definitely NOT a political scientist. One of the more blatant screwups is that the economic spectrum gets the Left/Right designation while the social spectrum is a Authoritarian/Libertarian designation. Yet, an example of the extreme Right pole is labeled Libertarianism and the Libertarian pole is Anarchists.
I scored -1.07 and -1.98.
That only proves my point ..."
You don't like the labels used in the test results. Have you read the FAQ at the Political Compass website? They address many of the criticisms you have about the results and the test itself.
Use your own labels if you like, don't get hung up on theirs. The results would remain the same but have a new label but essentially the same definitions. Yes?
We would all still agree on many propositions. On a specific proposition you might call your position liberal from a conservative perspective and I might call it conservative from a liberal perspective. The position is the same. The perspective is not. But we agree.
Rabbit puts forward a good experiment when he suggests testing again trying to produce results contrary to what you think is right. It is revealing.
"Go back and look at the questions and think about what you are trying to deny here." Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-22 00:22:37

Oh and by the way, you are often ascribing ideas to Rabbit, probably his score suroprises you too. Rabbit is exactly where he would expect to be, you have just understood very little about Rabbit yet. The idea of not wanting big government to rule our lives is not especially conservative, it is common to most people, and is only ever a consequence of political parties, who as we've established are not any more than power machines.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 19:44:44

Here is a simple story.
Jay thinks he is a reasonable conservative democratic individual.
We say he is supporting a fascist undemocratic viewpoint, by supporting ideas of certain leaders.
Jay says no these leaders are really supporters of my reasonable views.
This test shows Jay to be a reasonable conservative democratic individual. The test also shows that the leaders he supports are fascist and undemocratic. There is no way Jay would actually believe he supports somebody as far into the UGLY zone indicated by the graph. If you doubt it is ugly go back and try to reproduce those results on the graph, you will be shocked by the things you will have to believe to get there. The only answer Jay and WTH can give this is to deny the test is accurate. GUYS that just isn't logical.
Go back and look at the questions and think about what you are trying to deny herePosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 19:39:52

The FACT of the test giving valid results for comparison, is not an opinion, so don't go there.
Rabbit has just defined a scientific principle, which has to do with testing and without which all science would be worthless.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 19:32:36

PC is not silly, the proof is in the fact that it conforms to prediction. It may not be giving all the information you would expect, but as said that is because you think yourself much more different to us than you are. The same for Jay.
Since we have certian information which you don't, we are more likely to be in tune with where we actually stand in the political scheme of things.
The nuance and individualism, as well as the co-herance of the arguments presented by most of us show an assurance of what we know and the ability to support our views with referenced facts. Our lack of hesitation at replying in detail, and directly to anything which is said and the fact that we acknowledge mistakes, when they are shown, is the proof that we have something which you do not.
You both usually support the same concepts as us, but you ascribe these concepts, to false beliefes about people and history. If you had the same knowledge of the facts which we have, you would still have the same attitudes, but your beliefs will have changed. You will not register any different on the graph, than you do now, that is almost certain. Go back and read the questions, you are both completely missing the point to suggest that the thing is not a very good indication.
Rabbit tells you it is a FACT that the questions and the results are ABSOLUTELY valid, within the self imposed boundaries of the test. The results are DEFINATELY able to be used for comparison. The labels on the graph, are to be interpretd in relation to each other.
Therfore, for Jay to say that the middle is a dumping ground for those who fail to fit elsewhere, is patently insane. There is a scale, it has been numbered, and the very nature of a scale is such that some will fit in the middle exactly, while others will be at either extreme.
The problem you both have is that you Thought you were something else. This is not the least bit suprising to Rabbit who has said all along that you misunderstand certain fundamental truths. It is not you which is wrong, it is your ideas.
The proof is that your ideas are inconsistent with an UNBIASED survey based on attitudes. Guys the survey cannot be critisised in the way you are doing. The test like all tests of comparison, is to be judged on the previously defined criteria, and saying that these criteria do not say things they were never designed to say, is no argument.
The criteria were selected as a comparison. Who cares that JAY does not consider himself to be in the position to which he would have assigned himself, an independant test has just placed him where he is and that is valid, for the comparison, of anyone who takes that test.
WTH has given a result exactly as Rabbit would have predicted, and Rabbit has said as much for a week or more, before this test appeared. The only way this is possible is if Rabbit knows something WTH does not.
Of course you are going to argue with the results, because they are based on your real attitudes. Your pre-conceptions about where these attitudes placed you politically are according to us, based on misperceptions, about some leaders, about history. These are things which can be proven and if you ever allow yoursleves to look seriously at the things we show you, you will see this.
If you had different info than now, would you actually change any of the answers you gave to the test? Of course you would not, so what is so hard to understand.
The test essentially proves your politics are based on some error.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 19:29:18

WTH
Rabbit was only using the politics and relifgions as examples. The only point Rabbit was making, which you got obviously, was that People don't change just because they change their ideas. The Churchill quote is an excellent example.
Actually Rabbit has voted for Labour, (Bob Hawke), Democrats, Greens, National Marijuana Party, One Nation (helped them in the election), and even refused to vote and been fined for it. (We are compulsory, which is not a bad idea I feel, these days) Rabbit has also written his feelings in flowery prose all over the ballot papers on occasion.
rabbit was born an Atheist, became an Apostolic, then Mormon Christian, turned to budhism for many years and am still officially on the role as a Budhist. Now.............
Rabbit has finally realised he was an
Gnostic all along.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 18:46:04

"Also, we tend to worry more. Little imagination = little to worry about. This is the lure of fundamentalism."
Point well taken. What we are currently seeing unfolding in the world is a struggle between closed systems (fundamentalism) where answers are given from on-high, written down in words to be taken literally and without question and open systems which accept not having absolute knowledge of everything and understand that openness is the way to progress, The downside is there is more to worry about, more questions, fewer easy answers, and development (social and personal) is challenging.Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-21 10:26:57

Rabbit says,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-21 09:35:55

David,
No, I wasn't overly disappointed, only in that it isn't as revealing as I'd expect. My objections are as previously stated; there doesn't seem to be much differentiation on at least the full spectrum of a progressive nature. I think the "middle" of this scale is more of a dumping ground that these scales fail to separate.
But, maybe that would be too fine a hare to split...Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-21 07:25:58

No, Beliefs are things which come and go, today I'm a christian, tomorrow I'm a Muslim, or Budhist.
Once i was a Liberal now I vote Labour.
I am still I. Changing one's beliefs is changing one's beliefs.
There are beliefs which when once changed also change the believer, but mostly Rabbit thinks it is a path of discovery about who we are and only when we have found out that will we be able to ascertain what beliefs we are left with. We are who we always were.......now we know it......Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-21 00:42:54

If beliefs change the believerhas changed.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-20 23:21:24

This last post of Rabbits, apart from showing off his new Rabbit skills, is based upon the presumption that political and religious beliefs change, people do not.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 22:43:41

I thought the test was fairly accurate. More good than not good. 10 points would be a bit too much spread. 5 points would allow for a fence to sit on. Strong agree, agree, no opinion or undecided, disagree, strongly disagree. But I liked that the questions demanded commitment to your answer. Too may people sit on fences for the wrong reasons.
What I found interesting was how those of us who took part were all in the same quadrant. Not so different after all it seems. In general at least. Some different opinions on specific issues. But mostly of an accord.
I had expected that my results would be closer together. My sum was - 8.10 and I would have initially expected a -4 and -4, give or take a point. After some consideration and self reflection I understand why I have the spread that resulted.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-20 22:40:34

From what Rabbit has intuited and learned directly, via peoples comments and what he, Rabbit, knows of people. The fact is you may notice the similarity between WTH and Rabbit. Rabbit has been pointing this fact out for some time as it happens. WTH and Rabbit almost always agree on matters where the FACTS are indisputed.
Obviously there have been many opportunities for Rabbit to observe others of this number and he longs after at least as many others as we have now............................Rabbit MOSTLY wants his beloved.....DARK and Deadly Natalie, Scorpy would be second choice, but will he deign to lower himself to actually looking at the same site as so many of we dirty liberals have already soiled with our mishapen eyes?
Rabbit has a few clues as to where they both will be and there are others too. .
Where is Rabbit's honoured and awesome Queen EADORA? Sweet LIZ? GrayArea? KUYA? The Mangy WOLF?
Yes in fact Rabbit feels that within thelimitations set by the scales themselves, they are limited to specific attitudes, which are yet simple enough in individual interpretation that each will give a response which is based on things more fundamental about one than mere religion or political labels suggest.
These are the things that matter, and Rabbit is actually more and more impressed with this model the more we see of it. The fact that Jay and WTH have reacted the way they are to their own scores, and no doubt what is yet to come, will further compound this observation.......thinksRabbit.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 22:40:17

Very interesting.
I agree that it is a very imprecise measure. It should def be a 10 point continuum.
However it is a good platform for a discussion.
Rabbit, peoples' results make sense to you and I am curious as to why.Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-20 22:10:48

Rabbit always was the most straight one at hippy things, even though he is a happy hippy hoppy Rabbit.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 21:46:36

Jay is more than middle of the road, he's a bit left of and less than authoritarian.
Monk we have discussed 'bombing' the right wing sites with logic before, it is a lost cause. Has the Monk seen the sort of dicussion that goes on these sites?
The main way of proving a fact is to say "everybody knows that" and "If you had any clue you would know that...."
There is no way that a reasoned logical approach would ever gain anything by ridicule and shouting down on a right wing site. Rabbit has looked at some of them, and does indeed throw in a hand grenade once in a while. The best thing is to chuck in the grenade then run, don't bother sticking around for the fireworks. There is always some, there are always lefties lurking ready to pounce, they are in greatest numbers on the net.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 19:36:12

Two of us. Two of us. Two of us.
All of us. All of us. All of us.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-20 19:30:32

Whattheheck and Jay, others too, "score points" with me by being here and being outnumbered. Diversity of opinion helps the debate. All are welcome, or should be.
Maybe some well spoken "lefties" should go vist some "rightie" sites?
I think that whattheck and Jays scores are probably accurate too.
Jay doesn't seem too put off by his score. Correct me if I am wrong Jay. Other than being middle of the road. Nothing wrong with that.
Whattheheck, do you maybe just not like sitting next to the rest of us when you thought you would be in another room? It's ok, we won't bite.
One of us. One of us. One of us. hehePosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-20 19:25:21

WTH and Rabbit as often too much common ground. This would have helped a lot.
"A better measure would be a 1 to 10 sliding scale for each question similar to the final outcome graph."
Nevertheless, WTH the fact that the fact of our positions on the graph, may be more accurate than it seems. Rabbit recognises the intrinsic rightness about his own scores, even though they are more 'right' and authoritarian than what would be expected. The same may be true of many of the apparently odd reseults. At the same time he believes yours and probably Jay Clines are actually closer to the truth.
This is actually the flip side to what I said above about Jay's score. You are both in reality holders of those viewpoints, it is simply many of the facts of everyday existence which mean you are mis-informed. Rabbit knows that this will be hard to listen to objectively, but he hopes that WTH at least is capable of considering this idea.
Consider this. You are for the most part supportive of Bush.(compared to most of us). Have a look at where Bush is on the Graph? Now honestly do you see yourself out there? Jay is closer, (and his graph says so), but even he is no-where near that sort of people. Rabbit for one, had already intuited this about both of you, even Jay, who can ignore Rabbit all he wants, Rabbit can still see him and talk to him.
..............(See he has his wee hands over his ears but he can't shut his eyes and stay on the thread.)
If this idea could be carried a step further, it would seem fair to suggest that something is wrong to cause the apparent politics of WTH and Jay to lean so much further to the Authoritarian Right. Rabbit suggests it is wrong facts.
They would have many more similar opinions as others on this thread if they had the same facts. Of course they can say we have the wrong facts, but then we are where we should be on the graph, you are the ones 'apparently' out of place.
Has it ever occurred to either of you that you are involved in regular discussion threads on a LEFTIST site? Neither of you are trolls. Rabbit admits Jay has shown himself to not be a Troll, and although Rabbit does not offer any other concession to Jay, he apologises for calling Jay a troll.
Jay is still as ignorant as dirt, but he is neither stupid, nor a Troll........................................<>..........................
Anyway, what are you here for? Neither of you are scoring any points against we 'lefties' sorry to say it so, but you must realise it. The fact may well be that you are both well represented by your personal stats.
For what Rabbit's intuition is worth, and it is his best sense, they look about right to me.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-20 18:36:44

Last night I posted some of my own criticisms of this compass at my own blog, if anyone is interested. Not really anything more than what has been said already, thoughPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-20 09:03:22

I agree the scale is not very good. At the very least there needs to be a don't know/don't care/no opinion choice. There were a couple questions I that had no real interest or opinion about, but was forced to choose sides. That consequently gave far too much weight on those questions.
I also think linking LEFT vs RIGHT to strictly the economic scale probably distorted the questions and analysis. The apparent underlying assumption is that LEFT/RIGHT politics is strictly about economics, so it actually defeats the purpose of a true two dimensional scale.
David ("Popeye") is right. I yam what I yam.Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-20 08:59:04

mrraven says,
Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-20 08:51:07

DavidPosted by whattheheck on 2005-10-20 08:33:08

.. or open their eyes to more nuanced possibilities.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 22:20:12

Exactly, pigeon holing (pun intended raven) aside it was interesting.
People tend to get stuck on " either/or ". It is a false contradiction. It only serves to make true believers on either side close their eyes to more nuanced possiblities.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 22:18:07

Mrraven
There is some truth to what you say. The model has it's limitations, but the Old Left vs Right thinking runs into similar problems.
What I find interesting is the double axis comparison. Maybe the questions need a bit of refinement, but the method seems to make sense.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 22:07:24

Hmmm I think the "political compass" is pretty much b.s. a lot of the questions have built in assumptions towards traditional left and right thinking. For example when it asks about public funding of radio in the following fashion:
"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding."
I was EXTREMLY frustrated. Although I said radio should recieve "public" funding this seems to imply I'm a traditional centralist old left government NPR supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact I think the most interesting media is do it yourself community and pirate media which is NEITHER funded by the government nor by capitalism. It is neither old old left socialism nor laizez affair care nothing for others capitalism. This survey leaves no place for such a perspective.
So I got a
Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36
but I cry foul because many of the questions try to box a person into a left right divide that I think is outdated from a 21st century bio-regional, progressive, information society perspective.Posted by mrraven on 2005-10-19 21:39:37

I will be who I will be.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 21:07:24

This one got lost, here it is again.
Rabbit has done the thing for the Monk. Couple of questions Rabbit would have preferred a "not sure".
Rabbit has not yet made up his mind about same sex couples and adoption. Almost 50/50, and I have swayed a bit back and forth on the issue over the last couple of years.
Rabbit is sitting just to the right of Ghandi.
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28
After having seen the graphs at the bottom, Rabbit would expect dittoheads to be closest to the centre. They would be found further to the right if their ideas alone were used to judge. Since they have many misconceptions though about themselves as well as the rest of the world, they answer along the lines of their misperceptions rather than the actual meaning of what they claim to believe.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 20:27:01

It looks like Rabbit has correctly identified himself as an Anarcho-socialist.
Quite an interesting little site, thanks Monk.
Rabbit has long hated the definitions of Left versus Right too and this is a solution.
Now how about we divide the world into quarters and each quadrant can have theirs?
Not good, we will end up with all these clowns like Jay who think they are something they are not. Pulling our quadrant into the evil right top one by virtue of their delusions.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 20:26:19

America is not going to move forward politically and re-engage people in politics until we move beyond the tired ideological formulations of both the Republicans and Democrats.
I think people are interested in social justice, i.e. people being treated fairly regardless of race, color, sex, etc. I also think the vast majority of people think corporations and corporate "MSM" media have WAY too much influence on our lives. What people don't want though is a big centralized Federal government intruding in our lives. Thus we need to work on regional county and community based solutions to our problems. An example would be here in Washtenaw county Michigan (home of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) where we have a county based health plan that provides health insurance for those too poor to afford medical care. This seems like the right approach to me, it gets the job done of taking care of the poor without the cumbersome top heavy inefficiency of a Federal single payer health care system. Other examples of regional non bureaucratic solutions to our problems are food co-ops, credit unions,and community gardens.
To move forward I think we need to acknowledge BOTH the right wing point that the big daddy hide bound bureaucratic government isn't going to take care of us (as in the failure of Federal subsidized housing projects) and the point of progressives that it is inhuman to just leave people behind in a mad every more competitive rat race, and unsustainable to strip the earth of raw materials at an exponential rate. I think we can also get paleo-cons and some Libertarians on board for a non imperalist isolationist foreign policy. It's pretty scary that in many ways Pat Buchanan makes more sense to me on foreign policy than Hilary Clinton. I mean he's right we're a republic not an empire, right?
I suppose what I'm talking about is something like the Green Party with some with effective leadership, something the current U.S. Green party is totally lacking. I think we also need to take seriously Libertarian right critiques imperalism as are seen at antiwar.com
I seriously doubt either the corporate funded Dems or Repigs would have the creativity to rebirth themselves in this way.
Anyone with ideas about what a post big government progressive movement would look like, and how we can communicate such ideas to people feel free to e-mail me at raven200@gmail.comPosted by mrraven on 2005-10-19 19:47:48

Correction:

25 years agoPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-19 19:28:58

Jay's political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.07
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.98
This is very similar to an article I read about 25 years. I would add a third, semi-major axis differentiating political belief in progressive political evolution vs "fall from grace". Measuring left and right on the economics scale doesn't really cover that.
Besides, I hate being thought of as middle-of-the-road ;)
Thanks, lb and David!Posted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-19 19:27:27

http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Luminous Beauty linked this on another thread and it is apt for this thread as well.
Some difficult questions, no fence to sit on. Polarizing but effective. Avoid knee jerk reactions unless knee jerk reactions are the reactions you actually have. hehe. I am usually skeptical / disdainful of "questionnaires" but this one, for me, was thoughtful and accurate, I approved of where it brought me:
I am sitting next to Ghandi.
David's political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85
I would be interested in other people's results. Please remember there is no right or wrong result. Just different results.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-19 18:50:16

"the American public still wants to see a proud and strong America"
Too bad they are seeing a collapsing and weak America, or at least they will when they open their eyes.
http://tinyurl.com/cykxx
http://tinyurl.com/dqvp2
http://tinyurl.com/9kc2m
http://tinyurl.com/ey8fr
Choosing either Dems or Reps will be re-arranging the deckchairs on the titanic. Still that sounds like an appropriate way for the greatest failure in the history of earths empires to go out.
Fiddle while Rome burns, it's been done before.
It seems likely that it is this blindness and hubris which brings down empires, very likely.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-19 18:39:08

part 2(SirotaPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-19 03:56:33

part 1
Incredible. Declare falsehoods to be truth and you can prove anything.
The one symptom Sirota fails to mention, the one he suffers from as well, is denial.
(John Kerry's nomination) was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races.
John Kerry was losing to Howard Dean, the true ideology of the 2004 race, until Kerry took his cue from Dean and steered his campaign to a much more vigorous opposition to the Iraq War. Kerry didn't start to lead the pack until he co-opted Dean's message. It was only after that, and after Dean's tantrum, that Kerry earned his electability.
In fairness, Iraq may be an exception when it comes to the grassroots. There is undoubtedly a palpable - and growing - core of progressives outside the Beltway who put their desire to see American troops withdraw above their partisan loyalties.
No. No. No. That is the falsehood that is costing Democrats elections. That blatant partisanship is gutting the Party for the second time in three decades. As a strong believer in BushPosted by Jay Cline on 2005-10-19 03:55:19

"Men think in herds, go mad in herds, but recover their senses one by one." Charles MackayPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-18 18:14:12

Wolf you are in need of help as a parent it would seem. You are doing what so many failed parents do.
"As a parent, I often use fear to Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 18:09:50

Interesting but not true. Out here on the ground, not in the blogosphere or DC or the salons or radio shows or all that can be perceived by the macro-media, the micro-media is organizing around universal policies that will reshape the states and the nation. Without comment or commendation we are changing everything from a sound ideological basis. To wit:
1- Universal Healthcare
2- Out of Iraq Now
3- Clean Money Elections
4- Environmentally sound business (put the GREEN in the Greenbacks)
5- Living Wage
I could go on but that's a good start. These entities Mr. Sirota refers to are not the left, liberal or progressive movements just folks playing the old game the old way. In California we have a Progressive
movement at every level, local, regional, state and national. Its' here and its' growing and its' just getting started.
David should come for a visit.
further,
Brad Parker
PDLAPosted by riozen on 2005-10-18 16:51:12

A UN security force, with Muslim troops or at least more neutral and complete US British and Australian withdrawal. The war is illegal, it is being waged imorally and poorly and it cannot ever be won by us. We invaded their home and have caused a serious fight among their family. There is NO justification to remain and try to fix the mess. They neither NEED nor WANT our help. When will even the more enlightened souls of your benighted land wake up to this.
I agree that we are in their living room, and uninvited, and they want us gone. I said before the last election that we should get out of there, there is nothing that we can do to make it better (jeeze, we don't even control the "green zone" and a ride to the airport can be fatal).
The country is ALREADY in a civil war, and women have ALREADY lost their freedom. Every innocent civilian that we kill makes 2 or 3 terrorists. We are actually working against ourselves here - talk about BECOMING our enemy.
Trying to control Oil is not only impossible, it's working against our own interests - think of what 300 billion dollars could have bought in the way of alternative energy technology!! We would have no need of oil by now.
We definately need charismatic leaders to articulate the progressive agenda, we need them now, and we need them to be staunch and vocal in their defense of progressive values.
Bernie Sanders comes to mind.
I, a lifetime democrat, will never vote for Hillary. She has abandoned her ideals and values for the fine triangulation that won the presidency for her husband. That was then - and it was over 10 years ago. Now we need politicians that actually believe in what we do. Triangulation just won't cut it.Posted by SB_Gypsy on 2005-10-18 15:07:03

"Of course, the *real* problem is that the vast majority of us either donPosted by Neruda on 2005-10-18 14:32:53

" This seems far too simplistic to me. As a parent, i often use fear to Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-18 14:17:29

If you want the attention and backing of a large number of people you must offer to serve a need they have in common. This is a basic theme in mass marketing.
I agree with a number of comments on this article, but it seems to me the discussion quickly degenerates to those things we disagree on Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-18 13:34:48

"They can be bad shepherds and use fear and ignorance to keep the sheep in line. They can be good shepherds and use love and knowledge to show the sheep a better way."
This seems far too simplistic to me. As a parent, i often use fear to "keep the sheep" in line. Look both ways when you cross, don't do drugs, etc etc.
I suppose that ignorance is often self imposed, for one reason or another (typically due to lack of time/inclination).
It seems far more important to me that the "shepherds" get the "sheep" to do whats right. A famous (infamous?) example was how FDR manipulated public opinion to help draw the US into WWII.
Of course, the *real* problem is that the vast majority of us either don't have the resouces or time or ability to decide if our leaders are following a path that is in our best interests. I believe this is true for all social strata. It is made impossibly difficult by the obvious fact that we have very little ability to forecast the future, and yet must choose to act as if we know what we are doing. . .Posted by wolf on 2005-10-18 13:00:56

"Personally, even if government could Posted by chuckville on 2005-10-18 09:55:52

"They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see."
The quote above is from the link above. In 1949 only the neocons could see that the Soviets were evil? I expect that hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe might have had their suspicions. . .
Personally, even if government could "take care" of us, i would be very leary of such an arrangement. I prefer freedom, such as it is, to the gilded cage.Posted by wolf on 2005-10-18 09:40:38

"'It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.' --What does this mean? Perhaps some examples might make this more understandable?"
Wolfie,
This is in reference to the brilliant BBC documentary about the origins of both NeoConservatism and Radical Islam, "The Power of Nightmares". That phrase is the main tag line, or thesis-statement of the film.
Essentially, the filmmakers are saying that the Liberal dream, that of the promise and power of 20th Century Liberalism, was that government could provide for their people, address and solve societal ills, and be the central construct in people's lives, helping them all achieve their dreams. That dream failed, and now government, with no tanglible purpose anymore in an era where widescale warfare is obsolete, promises to "protect us from our nightmares" by dealing in the politics of fear.
If you think Fahrenheit 911 did any good to expose the criminal administration we have now, then just hold on to your cobbles! "The Power of Nightmares" makes Fahrenheit 911 look like From Justin to Kelly. I cannot stress enough how important it is for all Americans to view. It is a top notch, professional, credible, non-Partisan documentary which exposes the Posted by chuckville on 2005-10-18 08:56:38

Here is a serious question. Given that blacks (a misnomer if there ever was one) vote overwhelmingly Democratic (~90%!!!), is this an example of:
1) sheep following what authority figures tell them to do
or
2) a group of well informed folk who understand their own political self interests?
Other alternatives are welcome.Posted by wolf on 2005-10-18 07:57:32

"It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares."
What does this mean? Perhaps some examples might make this more understandable?Posted by wolf on 2005-10-18 07:52:39

Hello Rabbit,
I don't justify the Iraq war, they can keep the oil.
But security and law/order don't exist (and yes, I know how they were broken, and how they behaved before they were broken).
There's no safety there. Violence has been unleashed that won't (I believe) subside even if foreigners bail.
Believe me, I'm aware of how we got to the present situation. I've argued against the US being in Iraq since before the invasion. But we're at the fucked up present moment now, and my indignation about how it all so bitterly took place doesn't change what's in hand and won't turn back the clock.
Would turn back the clock if I could, back to before the sponsorship of Saddam 'way back when. But that aint gonna happen, and today, I believe some kind of security apparatus has to be built.
Sooner the better. The more Iraqi-controlled the better.
The sooner we all get a realistic understanding about oil, and use the shit more intelligently (equals sparingly), the better.Posted by Kuya on 2005-10-18 07:49:56

" So what is the difference between the sheep and those who question the news? "
Fear and ignorance can separate those who question from those who don't. Education may be able to dispel fear and ignorance. Fear and ignorance can dispel an education.
It used to be the politicians promised to deliver us our dreams. Now they promise to deliver us from our nightmares.Posted by David in Canada on 2005-10-18 06:59:29

"Neruda, education does not necessarily a critically thinking sheep make. It can help certainly, but there are plenty of smart people who do a Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-18 06:40:12

Not wishing to take the thread off topic, Rabbit is reluctant to say this but here goes..
Cutting and Running in Iraq, is the right thing to do if the majority of Iraqis want this and I think they do. we should never have been there in the first place and we are not fixing anything stumbling around like a bull in a China shop. The mess is bad and it is getting worse. It will not get better while the troops of an invading army are everywhere.
Most importantly is that you are STEALING their oil and they know it. the OIL belonged to Iraqis it is being "FORCEFULLY" privatised and is being placed under US control. THAT IS PIRACY and all the good will in the world will not suffice while this is going on.
A UN security force, with Muslim troops or at least more neutral and complete US British and Australian withdrawal. The war is illegal, it is being waged imorally and poorly and it cannot ever be won by us. We invaded their home and have caused a serious fight among their family. There is NO justification to remain and try to fix the mess. They neither NEED nor WANT our help. When will even the more enlightened souls of your benighted land wake up to this.
WE DON'T WANT WHAT YOU ARE SELLING. We don't want it even when you force us to take it.
Cutting and running is just a spin. GET OUT is simple. STOP stealing their OIL is even more simple.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-18 01:59:16

Hmmm, well, I guess the ITT server got my name right after all.
Computers. Crazy machines!Posted by Kuya on 2005-10-18 01:06:02

(Strangely, the comment box says I'll be identified as "David Sirota". I am not, I am Kuya.)
I think this is a very valuable article, really a breath of fresh air. I appreciated the author's willingness to look at the "progressive" movement not so much as an opponent, but as something of an insider, and to characterize some of its pretty severe limitations. Yes, I know we can debate the semantics of the term "progressive", but for brevity's sake I'll conveniently use it as stated. 4000 characters, ya know.
Conservative/libertarian posters at this site often say that self-described progressives suffer from hazy thinking, disjointed styles of reasoning, and intellectual sloppiness. Sometimes I think they have a point even though in general I tend to agree more with the progressive side. For example, IPosted by Kuya on 2005-10-18 01:04:48

" But what seperates those who question the media from those who donPosted by David in Canada on 2005-10-17 22:33:11

"what seperates those who question the media from those who donPosted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 22:21:03

"The disorganised state of what would be a real opposition force is due to the MEDIA primarily. The relatively recently christened MSM. WE KNOW how much they FILTER the news and Rabbit for one has seen MANY examples of very serious mis-reporting becoming the supposed gospel truth among the mis-informed masses"
Rabbit I believe that this is half the story for sure. But what seperates those who question the media from those who don't?
Perhaps there is a reason that education is talking point that nobody really wants to reform. Critical thinking does not make for good sheep.Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-17 20:17:05

WTH and Rabbit agree once again on issues where the facts are not in dispute.
The Dems have not offerred an alternative in concept or in the details even down to social security which should be considered their turf.
Wolf even gets no argument from Rabbit, and certainly not CD embrey.
It is rather telling guys that even the conservatives are "COMPLETELY" on target about what is wrong with the DEMS. Now if only they could all as clearly see the NEO-CONS for what they are.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 19:35:14

Chuckville and Farbie, Rabbit salutes your posts, you have bothe said all Rabbit would and better about the "Centrist Corporate-Defense Party". That is a very good name for it. It is what has become of all our intended or de-facto 2-party systems. The left is trying to appeal to the conservatives, or more caccurately the conservatives are the face of whatever organised left labelled rersistance there is, or isn't. We all (USA, Britain and OZ) seem to have the most insane fascist leaders all of whom would seem to be such F*cking A*seholes that anybody should be able to beat them, hell they even felt threatened by Michael Moore's Ficus, enough to pull some swift fraud against it.
YET our supposed oppositions are in all cases disorganised, and the most coherant message is pretty much just "more of the same". It cannot be that both sides of politics are "Missing the point" of what makes people dissatisfied. They cannot be both ignoring "ALL" the issues which people want dealt with differently. This is only logically possible with a conspiracy, Rabbit can find no more appropriate word.
The FACTS of who supports which party, for how much, what they expect AND GET, in return is not even a secret, so what is there to discuss?
Rabbit has an OPINION about why this is the same in each of our countries.
The disorganised state of what would be a real opposition force is due to the MEDIA primarily. The relatively recently christened MSM. WE KNOW how much they FILTER the news and Rabbit for one has seen MANY examples of very serious mis-reporting becoming the supposed gospel truth among the mis-informed masses.
This keeps everybody in doubt about the truth about so many things. At the least people are confused with the amount of information and just switch off, going into beer and football mode. People are easily made to mistrust each other this way. One group or another is focused upon and all the NEGATIVE sides of that group's existence and contact with the wider "percieved" community. It can be youth, race, drugs, religions any group you care to think of can be made to look sufficiently "DIFFERENT" and somehow threatening to all these insecure sheeple everywhere. Everyone buys into some part of the story and joins the sheeple in their BLEATING. They bleat whatever they are told to bleat. "Four legs good two legs bad" BAA BAA....................
"Muslims are terrorists who hate us...BAA BAA"
"We have to kill everybody in case they get the idea to kill us....BAA BAA"
So long as we are all convinced that some group or another are our enemies instead of concentrating on defining who are our friends we are at the mercy of the, centrist corporate-defense party.
Both the DEMOCRAP garbed beast as well as the REPUGNANT one.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 19:25:26

Rabbit has landed. Am reading still and will be doing so again slowly as well as thinking before saying anything.
This may serve as a warning to any Morons who may or may not be lurking (woof woof), not to be posting anything too stupid, lest ye be given the choice of eating them or the stick.Posted by GhostRabbit on 2005-10-17 18:49:06

First of all, the progressives are not the base of the Democratic party. The Democrats are the base of the progressives, and the "Wal-Mart Joes" and Joans are the base of the Democratic party, just as the businessfolk who hire and fire them, and thereby obtain their allegience, are the base of the Republican party. The source of the confusion dates back to the Depression, when FDR harnessed a progressive socialist vanguard administration in order to transfer a flagging allegience from Big Business to Big Government, in order to mobilize the nation for war. Once the war was won, the socialists were cut loose and the fascists returned to, er, business, as usual.Posted by Major Major on 2005-10-17 15:55:11

The problem with the anti-war movement is that is is just anti. I have yet to read a coherent way to leave Iraq, other than what we are currently doing (shoring up the Iraqi government until it can provide some semblance of security).
The Dems need to provide a viable alternative to the Repubs. One could imagine beginning by attacking the termination of the estate tax, which seems like an easy target. Moving on to make the tax system more progressive seems like a relatively easy issue to capture as well (economic justice for the working man or some such).
It would seem to me that discarding the politics of race would be another big plus up for the Dems. If they were to focus on the real stratifications in our society, it would be class based. I think more people would be sympathetic to class based assistance, rather than race based 'give aways' or 'reverse discrimination' (while both quotes are accurate, they are also inflammatory).
Bush has apparently ceded the domestic side to the Congress, while he focuses on the war. This could be used to advantage, but one should not pander to the "anti-war" crowd unless they have real alternatives to the war. And no, just cuttinng and running is not such an alternative.Posted by wolf on 2005-10-17 13:46:44

"Also get out of Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-17 13:22:42

I'm a life long PROGRESSIVE Republican and I think that most of the Democratic party is way too far too the RIGHT!!!
Stop pandering to big businessPosted by c.d.embrey on 2005-10-17 13:07:48

The previous posts have said most of it. I would suggest that the focus of opposition must be economic security...that a national economy must be about the production of economic security for all citizens(the necessary basis of true freedom and individualism and effective democracy), rather than a competitive game of "opportunity" for a few to achieve extreme affluence, and undemocratic control of social policy. The Democrats must again become populists, and paint conservatism as a proponent of class divisions. It IS class warfare.Posted by amygdala on 2005-10-17 13:05:55

"Look at them both holistically, and you will see there is no empirical difference. They both stand for the same things, and differ on negligible, niggling non-issues."
Empirically there is a difference between the two parties on important issues: while the Dems position on Gay Marriage is a BS compromise, it is different than wanting to pass anti-gay marriage amendments; while Dems have failed to provide a real education program, they are far from believing that the solution is standardized testing and privatizing the educational system; the parties have different stances on women's right to choose, and they have different beliefs about the governments role in assisting American in need (for example the victims of Hurrican Katrina).
I am not saying that they are different across the board. They have clearly gotten too close to corporate America. They have allowed themselves to be cowed by the repubs. Worst of all they have undertaken a policy of appeasement on a large scale for fear of alienating moderates and independents.
Perhaps it goes back to one of your original points, we do need to shake up the political system. We have needed a third party for a long time. Sans that party however, if we the nation is to stop this turn right, the Dems do need to go back and rediscover why they are Dems to begin with.
Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-17 12:59:06

"It is the Wal Mart Joes of this world that used to vote Democratic, that voted for Reagan in 1980, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004....
Democrats need Wal Mart Joes back, and the conservatives have given LOADS of ammunition to any Democrat that is willing to take a stand on the economic issues of taxation and health care, and the failed Iraq war."
In Sunday's "Washington Post" column SundayPolitics, there was a blurb about DNC Dean's "Merlot Democrats" aka "the base". Seems that 1/3 of them have postgraduate degrees and they are "affluent and secular in their cultural values, and not particularly anxious about 'pocketbook' issues." Does anyone really wonder why the Democrats keep losing? Wal Mart Joe's don't hate gays but they don't see any reason to adhere to a party that places gay marriage and abortion above the economic interests of most of the country - which is mainly feeding, clothing, and sheltering their families with a bit left over. And why should they?Posted by DFlinchum on 2005-10-17 12:16:59

The Democrats were once known as the party of the ordinary working people Posted by whattheheck on 2005-10-17 11:09:13

"It does seem that the anti-war movement and Cindy Sheehan, in particular, helped to galvanize anti-war sentiment across the country."
True...until she went from being a grieving mother to a celebrity and partisan hack. Her little smiling moment at the so-called "civil disobedience" at the White House showed how much activism has become entertainment. There should have been a riot there, instead, not one of those celebrities was actually arrested. It's a joke. I encourage these folks to go back and read their Thoreau, "On The Role and Importance of Civil Disobedience". It is not supposed to be "fun".
And, what does it matter if the choir is "galvanized", they are still the choir. Most Americans are completely disconnected from the so-called "anti-war movement", which to most Americans is simply a joke.
Lastly, as I said, so long as you keep perpetuating the myth that there is any real or empirical, quantifiable difference between the Dems and Reps, you are part of the problem. Look at them both holistically, and you will see there is no empirical difference. They both stand for the same things, and differ on negligible, niggling non-issues.Posted by chuckville on 2005-10-17 10:15:47

"The so-called Posted by Neruda on 2005-10-17 10:06:23

Sirota's posting today reminds me that, I too, supported Kerry on the theory that he was the most 'electable' candidate. There's no question that a candidate with powerful TV charisma, such as Bill Clinton, can go far, regardless of his position on issues. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of John Edwards, none of the 2004 candidates had Clinton's charisma.
Despite Sirota's leaning for an "ideologically pure" candidate, we really do need a charismatic leader, such as a Kennedy or a Clinton, who will nonetheless expouse a position that will expose the lies of the last 30 years of conservatism.
Conservatism has really be "in control" ever since Johnson gave up the South with the Civil Rights legislation. Jimmy Carter was elected because he was "from the South," as was Bill Clinton. The last northern Democrat was JFK, who was elected 45 years ago!
There is no question that the Bush presidency has exposed the fundamental weaknesses of conservative positions, especially on taxes, and fighting a useless and unnecessary war in Iraq, all in the name of "fighting terrorism."
We have had the 'progressive' taxation system undermined ever since Reagan, and there are still conservatives and libertarians who want a "flat tax," austensibly in the name of simplicity, but, in reality, as a giveaway to the very rich.
Unfortunately, much of the current conservative movement is made up of what I will call "Wal-Mart Joes", people who are barely middle class, or even below. They listen to Limbaugh and other hate-mongers of the radical right, who, while catering to Wal-Mart Joes' hatred of gays and others, bash the tax system that has benefited Wal Mart Joe the most, the progressive tax system. It is the Wal Mart Joes of this world that used to vote Democratic, that voted for Reagan in 1980, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. The conservatives are also to blame for the health care crisis in this country, nixing Hillary's Single Payer health care reform for market-driven insurance. Health Insurance costs have more than doubled over the last five years, which is why GM today announced that it is cutting billions out of its health insurance program for employees.
Democrats need Wal Mart Joes back, and the conservatives have given LOADS of ammunition to any Democrat that is willing to take a stand on the economic issues of taxation and health care, and the failed Iraq war. The current Congress only listens to the dictates of the corporations that put them there. This includes some of the lame and feeble Democrats that are currently in office. A Democrat who is able to articulate effectively what is wrong with the current path, including the "regressive" income tax, the market-driven health insurance industry, and the war in Iraq, while, at the same time, not appearing "wimpish," will be able to re-capture the Wal Mart Joes.
I know that recapturing Wal Mart Joes won't be easy, especially for those that want to take the correct stand on gays, namely, "let them marry, it ain't gonna hurt you." That should be an understated part of any campaign. JFK didn't push for Civil Rights in his campaign, although clearly he believed that the time had come to end the discrimination of the previous 170 years of American history.
Finally, it is really time for Democrats to take a stand on getting out of Iraq. It is the wrong war, only a "war for oil," and the American people are ready for true leadership on getting out.Posted by farbie on 2005-10-17 10:04:17

So long as we continue to associate the Democratic Party with "the Left"--neither of which really exist, as the "Democratic" party is merely one half of a centrist corporate-defense party, and "the Left" in the US bears no resemblance to actual Left politics--we will continue to remain trapped in this vicious cycle of political schitzophrenia known as American socio-political cognitive dissonance.
The so-called "anti-War movement" has been co-opted and subsumed by the Democrats, so that rather than a real movement that challenges government, we have Cindy Sheehan and her celebrity friends having a folk-song party in front of the White House, waiting for the next photo-op. United for Peace & Justice, purportedly the largest anti-war coalition in the nation, has steadfastly done everything in their power to not actually make any real challenge to the government nor create any real disturbance around the war, aside from the tired old ineffectual, unseen, unheard and unheeded marches and rallies that no one but the choir ever sees or attends.
In short, activism has become entertainment, and the Democratic Party has hoodwinked us all into thinking they care about us, when in fact, they give as much money to the Pentagon as the Repukes, and wouldn't dare challenge the corporate system which keeps them rich and fat and liars.
I encourage you all to read "Regulated Resistance: Is it possible to change the system when you are the system?" which asks, Does the American Posted by chuckville on 2005-10-17 09:51:52

One of the most progressive presidential candidates was Dennis Kucinich. He stood for everything that true Democratic progressives believe in. Yet, many progressives would'nt support him because they wanted someone who they thought could win. They wanted image, not substance. The rest is history.
Kucinich is still one of the few politicians that stands up for "We The People."
http://www.kucinich.us/Posted by Deb C on 2005-10-17 08:51:19